|
Jastiger posted:Oh definitely, i'm not COMPLAINING about it, I was just pointing it out. I think its fun to have new leaders to mix it up a bit for sure. Yeah, not exactly sure how i feel about agendas, but if it's easier for the AI to handle then that's good. The gameplay video said the barb combat was better, so hopefully the AI is better overall.
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Hm, I like builders and really like naturally occurring roads. In civ V you pretty much only needed roads between your cities, so making that process less tedious and more thematic is a nice touch. As for builders, I'll kind of have to fiddle with that before really making a judgement but I think it presents an interesting divergence from the standard worker method, and there were some cumbersome things about the old method.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Hopefully it doesn't have the bad stuff of EL too
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Not yet.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Hogama posted:If the leader meeting screen they have for Teddy's not placeholder at all, it could actually be more conducive to multiple Civ leaders than Civ V's sculpted scenes were. There's still the issue of voice acting, but a model alone should mean less work with props and posing and such. I'd imagine it cuts down on memory resources required for diplomacy and eases the work of modding, too. True, but I actually really liked the backgrounds of civ v leader screens, particularly when the leaders interacted with them in some way. Like, Boudica slamming her sword into the nearby cart is good stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
I'm a little wary of diplomacy so far. The only scenario they've played is one where they put a civ that likes to declare war on weaker nations with a civ that doesn't like that sort of thing. So inevitably, you see the situation unfold in a way that makes narrative sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Poil posted:Can anything top this? Sometimes If I've pulled an early lead I go out of my way to build the Cichen Itza just for that. I also like The Pyramids wonder screen.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
NAT-T Ice posted:My favorite will always remain the Civ 4 Kremlin for the "eh, close enough" award: I've always figured that had to be a joke. No way they'd get that far into making the video without realizing that the Kremlin is just in the background
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted: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 IDK, having improvements built instantly seems like it compliments relatively low yields rather well.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Edit: ^^^ Civ 5 citizens consumed 2 food per turn too. Eh, you can train builders earlier who'll construct stuff later. Or you can train people at one city and have them build improvements at another city. I can see uses there, and really having your workers sit around forever after you've built most of your improvements isn't really great design imo. Enslaving workers was fun, but I can't imagine it was WAD that the best strategy was to steal a worker from a city state before you met anybody else.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I'm thinking the builders having charges might make war a lot more fun. Previously, pillaging was just an annoyance because you could just have workers rebuild everything rather quickly. In 6 you will have to build builders to rebuild you lands. I predict that hit and run pillaging wars are going to be much more effective this time around. Plus, people are complaining about the value of enslaving, but now you'll need builders throughout the entire game, so enslaving might continue to be valuable later into the game, without being incredibly powerful right at the beginning.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:you want to spend all your Great Scientists 11 turns after you finish building Universities in all your cities (since GS bulb points are worth 10 turns' worth of science output) Is that how that works? I thought it was the 10 turns of science before the Great Scientist was born.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Huh, the more you know!
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Phobophilia is there anything in Civ V you can't complain about? I think they could definitely still Make multiple leaders per civ still, but I'm also not really sure why that's something we benefit greatly from? In Civ IV, the traits were a lot less specific, so multiple leaders helped add variety to the game. Basically: Panzeh posted:Honestly i'd rather see more civs than more leaders for existing civs.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
I'm just hoping it helps Civilization's long running issue of science being the only thing worth investing in everAerdan posted:Then, too, many civilizations just don't have a second iconic leader that would be distinct enough to qualify for their own UAs.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:That's pretty much it, isn't it? In Civ 1-4 trade was everything because trade converted to science. In Civ 5 food is everything because food = population = science. I meant that splitting the tech tree into culture and science might help because now there's two trees to go down and maybe if you just plow down the science side you'll have trouble competing against civs who take a balanced approach.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Barbs settling would be cool, but empires fracturing would be extremely irritating given that the game isn't simulation focused. I think, maybe civil war or revolution mechanics could be put in place, but permanent splits don't seem great to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Yeah but you were making it sound like a nation splitting into two states or something, or a colony gaining independence. Those are extremely not up civilization's alley.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
I'm all for making intracivilization conflict in the form of rebellions, civil wars or terrorist sects or something, but actually splitting goes against the nature of the game really. The way civ v does it with barbs appearing as rebels is ok, but seeing that expanded a bit more with the possibility of a city with low happiness splitting or nations vying for independence could be fun.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
I'd say stellaris's set up allows for that kind of thing more since you're customizing your start and you have more actual choices to make. The ethics system wouldn't make sense in a civ game. Even though stellaris isn't as much of a simulation as other doc games, it's more of a simulation than civ
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:How would you define the difference? Playing to win: Goes for optimal strats, hates you if you're the leader, declares war when you're close to victory Playing to be interesting: Likes or hates you based on what you've done to help or hinder them, plays according to a personality, etc There's pitfalls in both directions. Basically, the first one can be really irritating and the second one can be disappointingly easy. I think I prefer the second, at least when it comes to diplomacy.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:This is mostly because of the ridiculously over-the-top warmongering penalties though. Hopefully they realize that was dumb and tone it way down for Civ 6. "You took two cities from Alexander so I'm going to passionately hate your guts forever now, even though I've always hated Alexander and you've always been a bro to me" is stupid, stupid, loving stupid. Probably, but they couldn't directly call it that. Maybe they could make the normal mode simulation based, and then make a hard version called "Competitive" or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:yeah it just causes me to take 4d8 damage if I buy a game online that I already own on CD, ya know? Its why I don't have Age of Empires or Baldurs Gate updated versions. Ha, if this came up a month ago I would have sent you the free copy of Civ IV I had in my inventory. I popped it when I got the sudden desire to play civ iv and couldn't find my disc, which I found later that week.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
I have no clue why the worker thing sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't (Because it isn't universal, which in a way is weirder) but I can't help but feel that making workers simpler would help find and fix the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:* Aztecs are in under Monty, as is India with Gandhi. boo JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Like Civ 5. If they're balancing them more it sounds like it could be better than civ v. Like, if culture is as valuable a road to invest in as tech that would be great stuff
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Hard to see how it possibly could be though, those who invest in tech will invade and crush those who invest in culture with superior teched armies. Some unit types maybe locked behind cultural techs. Some cultural techs may unlock military bonuses that really make a difference. E: ^^^ Ah yeah, makes sense
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Tbh I've never got the big outcry about global happiness. To me, the most irritating thing about it is that the AI isn't affected by it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Gort posted:My main problem was how weirdly it was implemented. You had enough to get about four good-sized cities early on, then you only had about enough to stay static until Ideologies showed up later in the game and then you had virtually infinite happiness. Yeah that's more of the wide vs tall conflict going on. Earlier on in Civ V it was better to build as many cities as possible but now you can only really do 4 or 5 for a while. That's a deep and troublesome conflict in the game is the balancing of wide vs tall which they never really got down well imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I actually like building tall, so the gameplay effects were pretty fun for me. What really bothered me was the nonsensical effects. Like building small city on a faraway continent making my capital riot. I like building tall too, so that was fun. Just irritating that it's hard to do stuff like flip ideologies with tourism because of the ai's massive happiness bonuses
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Felt better than civ iv's all religions are the same, give you minor bonuses and Buddhism is the best one because you can get it quickly
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The diplomatic and civic effects of religion were better in Civ4, but the actual effects having a religion and the method of obtaining one were better in Civ5. Hopefully Civ6 merges the two. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I feel like that, once again, is an implementation issue. Take tithe out of the founder bonuses and modify the others a bit and it should be alright.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Nah the ai prophet and missionary spam is pretty bad
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Are you complaining about it or praising it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:i don't like it because it's a shoddy way to keep the mechanic relevant in the endgame, when everything's been converted. it all comes from the decision to make religion points a separate resource pool: there's nothing to spend them on after a certain time, and turning them into great people is a cop out. because then you simply treat it as a source of great people after a certain point in time Your viewpoints seem internally consistent and well thought out and I'm sure you have good ideas about civ design but I don't think I'm ever really going to be able to personally understand your perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Yeah you guys already covered it but the whole "religion or science" thing is just not historically accurate at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Oh I'm totally biased, I'm not going to deny it, haha. IDK, I think religion's history with science kind of equally goes in both directions. This is a simplified pop history version but it's like in the medieval period, the christian world was all about favouring religious dogma while the islamic world was all about doing as much science as possible as the true religious path. Then the age of enlightenment came about and things changed a bit. It's all about how you do it. There are certainly a lot of anti science religious stances today, but there also a lot of religious scientists. Like as an example, there's also a lot of anti scientific stuff in Communist (and Capitialist TBF) ideologies as well, but it doesn't really make sense to make that a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
Dark ages sound at least a little cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:I don't necessarily subscribe to the video game design philosophy of "anything the slightest bit negative is unfun and thus should never be part of a game". To me it's like a kid whining that he can't have cake and ice cream for every meal 3 times a day. At some point cake only tastes good because it's a treat and gets sickening when you have it every day. I think the general idea is that an easier way to balance games is that some mechanic is either going to be bad or good and stick to that. Like, with civics it's all good stuff, not good and bad stuff. Presumably this could also apply to negative things. You'll find that in stuff like Risk: Legacy where you're sometimes forced to pick from a selection of negative things. Or in games like Apocalypse world, you're often rolling not to determine if something bad happens, but how bad it is. Stuff like that. Civ definitely prefers to give players selections of bonuses with opportunity costs being the major drawbacks and the limited amount of bonuses you can take to give you an interesting choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
I've heard that Liberty is competitive and possibly even surpasses Tradition if you play the right way at the higher levels, but it's a bit of a debate in the community.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 02:56
|
|