|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'm now imagining SMAC in the Endless engine. In the G2G survey that's what I put, make the first expac SMAC. edit: Is it too late for you to change the thread tag to "I want to believe"? I feel like you missed an opportunity there. edit2: smac tax 
Mizaq fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Aug 24, 2019 |
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
lalaland posted:[...]the game[...] will be fun for about an hour before it becomes a boring slog ...So every Civ game ever, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
is the AI going to be any good I barely touched Endless Legend due to it
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:is the AI going to be any good I mostly played multiplayer in EL so it wasn't really an issue for me. But hopefully they do better than civ in this regard, especially with transparent diplomacy with the AI. One thing I hope they get rid of is the tedious RPG elements such as equipping hero units with items. That poo poo was just a time-sink to me in EL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Here's someone explaining how the combat works. It can take place over multiple game turns, with three battle turns happening per game turn. Sounds like they learned absolutely nothing from Endless Legend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Fleetwood Crack posted:I mostly played multiplayer in EL so it wasn't really an issue for me. But hopefully they do better than civ in this regard, especially with transparent diplomacy with the AI. oof, don't remind me of release Civ V, that AI was horrendous the more damning fact that more or less dogs V to this day is that you have to install device drivers and run an external program if you want to have functioning AI in your multiplayer games, which as a whole, makes absolutely no sense
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:oof, don't remind me of release Civ V, that AI was horrendous Civ6 and Endless Legend AI still feels worse than in Civ5. Even as a bad player (and I definitely am) they're really passive. I always feel like if I can beat them without even really building any units then they're doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
Davincie posted:ew no, score victory is the worst possible one in every 4x Through The Ages begs to differ  I mean yeah it's a board game but still. Anyway, really looking forward to seeing how the EL devs apply their pretty solid empire building gameplay in a more traditional Civ-style game, not looking forward to seeing their horrendous combat in those games get ported over in the process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:The least important aspect in a 4x is the "setting" or the "factions," in fact you'll have studio's trying to over-compensate on the setting (civ5 and 6 adding lots of text about new civs with no significant mechanics) in order to try to paper-over shallow game systems. So let's do the opposite, please. I'm gonna have to disagree on this part, at least to a degree. In principle, I ought to love games like EL or Stellaris, but in practice I always ended up dropping ongoing games mostly on the basis of the presentation (or lack thereof). Most of the fun in a 4x is seeing your empire grow and evolve, but in there you didn't really see that happening outside of some numbers getting bigger and the borders moving about. To be fair, that's as much an issue of the space setting as it is of those games specifically, but it is an issue nonethelss. Civ VI, for all its other weaknesses, does that part rather well. Your borders not only expand, but they fill up with buildings, wonders, improvements, districts. Little dudes are roaming around, sailboats turn into steamers, camels into trucks, and so on. Your progress and advancement are right there for you to see. And despite the relative sameness of the factions it is kind of extra fun to e.g. play as Maori and colonize the poo poo out of the USA. All of that does make a difference, at least for my casual rear end. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Civ VI, for all its other weaknesses, does that part rather well. Your borders not only expand, but they fill up with buildings, wonders, improvements, districts. Firaxis stealing this from EL is like the only redeemable part of Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:Through The Ages begs to differ Through the ages is probably the best game on this topic, yeah. Civ4 is probably the second best. Perestroika posted:I'm gonna have to disagree on this part, at least to a degree. In principle, I ought to love games like EL or Stellaris, but in practice I always ended up dropping ongoing games mostly on the basis of the presentation (or lack thereof). Most of the fun in a 4x is seeing your empire grow and evolve, but in there you didn't really see that happening outside of some numbers getting bigger and the borders moving about. To be fair, that's as much an issue of the space setting as it is of those games specifically, but it is an issue nonethelss. One thing that surprises me about civ games and other 4x games is that they keep trying to legislate down the quantity of cities to control rather than figuring out a game mechanic that lets an empire get and feel big, by, say, having everything be right there on the map. The worst aspect of cities/planets in 4x games is the need to go into a separate screen to manage them. Imperialism, in that regard, has not been surpassed in 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I'm gonna have to disagree on this part, at least to a degree. In principle, I ought to love games like EL or Stellaris, but in practice I always ended up dropping ongoing games mostly on the basis of the presentation (or lack thereof). Most of the fun in a 4x is seeing your empire grow and evolve, but in there you didn't really see that happening outside of some numbers getting bigger and the borders moving about. To be fair, that's as much an issue of the space setting as it is of those games specifically, but it is an issue nonethelss. Yea for me I really enjoy "story playing" so Stellaris is great for me because I get to sort of roleplay my empire. I enjoyed Civ4 for a similar reason. Endless Legend and Endless Space it doesn't feel right to me, so I just slide right off. I think theme and setting are a loving enormous part of what makes these games good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Through the ages is probably the best game on this topic, yeah. Civ4 is probably the second best. as much as I hate stacks, Civ 4 pretty much still remains best in class in a lot of ways I honestly just wish they'd figure out how to reasonably handle combat on the board, since 1UPT seems to really prefer lots and lots of indirect units while whatever the hell EL does is just lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
I hope it's more EL than ES2 because boy did I ever bounce hard off that game. I'm really loving that it looks like you'll be able to build absolutely massive megalopolises, Cultists-style. Cautiously optimistic for this as Amplitude's planetside 4X so far, EL, loving rules. e; Civ 4 and SMAC are still the greatest in genre.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:as much as I hate stacks, Civ 4 pretty much still remains best in class in a lot of ways Having played it recently, I don't think civ4's combat is actually that bad. It could be more complex, but in general i'd rather see civ combat get more in line with other systems in the game rather than more complex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Having played it recently, I don't think civ4's combat is actually that bad. It could be more complex, but in general i'd rather see civ combat get more in line with other systems in the game rather than more complex. While stacks might feel weird to people there's nothing (for me) more annoying than having to loving move 30 separate units to somewhere. Especially if - like in Civ5/6 - they can interrupt one another as they move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Victory Position posted:as much as I hate stacks, Civ 4 pretty much still remains best in class in a lot of ways Stacks are a great way to allow a superior force to mop up a lesser force. Plus they are easy to manage and force combat to me more "macro" based by rewarding supply lines so that you can keep up the assault into enemy terrain. While at the same time they allow an empire that is on the defensive a direct way to fight back using cavalry and siege units which wears downs the stack. Taear posted:While stacks might feel weird to people there's nothing (for me) more annoying than having to loving move 30 separate units to somewhere. Especially if - like in Civ5/6 - they can interrupt one another as they move. Yea unit carpet's are trash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Sure hope the combat is less nightmarishly terrible than EL. EL has a lot of positives but the combat is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:SMAC is not actually a very good game, it just has nice quotes. It's like civ2 but even more broken. mods ban this sick gently caress
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Having played it recently, I don't think civ4's combat is actually that bad. It could be more complex, but in general i'd rather see civ combat get more in line with other systems in the game rather than more complex. That's another odd quirk; you can build strongholds and the like in your own territory, but there's really no way to stage, say, a military encampment or base on the front lines. Have to have someone with Medic upgrades in order to keep the formation going. If you could align cultural borders or influence with the amount of military presence you have in a certain part of your enemy's territory to build one, I guess that's a way around it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I'm gonna have to disagree on this part, at least to a degree. In principle, I ought to love games like EL or Stellaris, but in practice I always ended up dropping ongoing games mostly on the basis of the presentation (or lack thereof). Most of the fun in a 4x is seeing your empire grow and evolve, but in there you didn't really see that happening outside of some numbers getting bigger and the borders moving about. To be fair, that's as much an issue of the space setting as it is of those games specifically, but it is an issue nonethelss. What are you talking about? It sounds like you lumped bad experiences with Stellaris in with experiences from EL. Are you confusing Endless Legend (EL) with Endless Space (1 or 2)? Endless Legend (2014) came out before Civ 6 (2016) and EL did the expanding districts different (arguably better, but definitely different). Did you only play as the Cultists in EL (limited to just one city)? EL borders jump with the regions as you colonize them, versus Civ-style (and Endless Space style) constantly expanding borders (from Culture/Influence). Your cities themselves constantly grow larger as you add districts in EL. I get that there's a discussion to be had comparing/contrasting the two different methods of border growth, but your arguments are all over the place and don't make a lot of sense. There's also a valid argument to be made that the EL/ES system is dense and they don't provide an intuitive interface and/or tutorial in order to teach you how it works. Makes me wonder how the cost/benefit of helping beginners looks according to their own business goals. Mizaq fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:What are you talking about? It sounds like you lumped bad experiences with Stellaris in with experiences from EL. Are you confusing Endless Legend (EL) with Endless Space (1 or 2)? Endless Legend (2014) came out before Civ 6 (2016) and EL did the expanding districts different (arguably better, but definitely different). Did you only play as the Cultists in EL (limited to just one city)? EL borders jump with the regions as you colonize them, versus Civ-style (and Endless Space style) constantly expanding borders (from Culture/Influence). Your cities themselves constantly grow larger as you add districts in EL. I get that there's a discussion to be had comparing/contrasting the two different methods of border growth, but your arguments are all over the place and don't make a lot of sense. I have, in fact, mixed up EL and ES. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
I had a difficult time getting a handle on Endless Space 2, and still only slightly get the migration aspect, mostly because of playing as the Horatio and deliberately trying to grow a specific population type. There’s probably some management of it that I could be doing better but the game gives you nothing to learn that from what I remember. Stellaris felt like all numbers to me, I went right back to ES2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
I don't think any 4x game has gotten military right, and it's for good reason. War is a difficult thing to implement unless you are making a purely war focused game. When one is playing an empire builder, we may not want to concentrate on the minutiae of whether or not we need a spearman because our enemy has horses, but it seems unavoidable if we want to have military in the game at all. The alternative would make military just another bucket that you dump production into, and reduce it to nothing but a number. We can certainly make the case that production equals military strength, but there is so much more to it. Alexander and Napoleon certainly had the means to make weapons and get men to the front, but battlefields were chosen based on the most innocuous of terrain, and by what the opposing army was equipped with. My point is that many empires were created based solely on attention to military detail, and we need that aspect in 4x games. The problem is that it's seemingly impossible to do correctly because players either want to concentrate on military or infrastructure. When I'm building I don't want to choose which helmet my men will wear, and when I'm leading a campaign I don't want to break my concentration to build a grain silo back at home. I think we need to accept that military will always be a nuisance in 4x games until some genius comes up with another way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
there is an indie 4x i forgot the name of wherein you just appoint military leaders and they do all the other stuff, i feelclike thats an idea worth exploring more
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Davincie posted:there is an indie 4x i forgot the name of wherein you just appoint military leaders and they do all the other stuff, i feelclike thats an idea worth exploring more Stellar Monarch?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:
I'd like to see this tried in a 4X: - Have four unit types, heavy infantry, light infantry, heavy cavalry, light cavalry - perhaps with a the extra specialist categories of seige equipment and artillery - Have them oppose each other in a sort of rock-paper-scissors sort of way (i can't remember exactly what's good against what, I'd have to refer to my medieval warfare book) - Stack everything so you can build an army with some combination of the four combat systems, and battles are stack v. stack, with terrain favouring certain combat systems (e.g flat confers a bonus to heavy calvary) - Have a "tactics tree" not unlike Civ 5 social policies, unlocked with experience and providing things like e.g. "parthian shot" that confers bonus to light calvary, and get rid of unit promotions altogether (so actually a little more like an empire-wide promotion system) - Have tech and access to resources confer bonuses to combat systems too - Add in an RNG to spice it up slightly ...and see what happens. (Admittedly this doesn't address all the problems but i basically started with "military is a number" and made it minimally interesting)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
a 4x where every war is decided through a game of advance wars 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Good. I love Civ but I think it needs competition and new ideas from a developer that hasn't been doing it since the beginning of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Hey, I was playing Civ 1 back in the early 90s it wasn't that long ago...doh. 2021 will be 30 years!
Mizaq fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'd like to see this tried in a 4X: You pretty much described Europa Universalis's combat system almost down to a T.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:You pretty much described Europa Universalis's combat system almost down to a T. "EU, but fun and also visually interesting" is a pretty decent design goal if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Stellar Monarch? Stellar Monarch has manual fleet control though? Does it have an auto mode too? JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'd like to see this tried in a 4X: I've been tooling around with ideas to "fix" Civ VI's combat for a while now. It goes like this:
With the desired gameplay dynamics being:
My goals being that:
Artillery remain in a siege role and I have this idea about giving the scout line stealth abilities, so they're a bit like land-bound subs. All of this is presupposing we retain 1UPT. If you don't want to do that, I don't think there's much point making the player care about pikes vs. bows because the differences between them aren't all that interesting above the tactical level. Rather, what you want to do is focus the system on strategic variables and give the player levers into that. Manoeuvre, logistics (notably absent from most 4Xs), production, veterancy, and information. A lot of the stuff which is going to be interesting here is going to be economic, social, political and doctrinal stuff. Clauswitz's war as an extension of society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
And in the end, it results in an overengineered system that everyone ends up dismissing as too complicated and not worth the effort to understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
I mean a lot of people just tend to reduce Civ IV's combat to "lol stacks of doom" without considering the nuances of how it rewards tactical unit composition on both offense and defense, the dynamics of whether to attack, whether to counterattack, how much risk you're willing to take on in how much of a force you bring and what units you attack with (remember that making powerful highly promoted units relies on keeping those units alive, so there's always an element of risk since only the most lopsided of combats are guaranteed wins), the role of collateral and first strikes and flanking, etc. etc. and think it's just a braindead "bring more units than the other guy and you win" which yes, is a valid strategy if you're capable of just bringing an overwhelming force (not to mention certain eras in base Civ IV where certain units just straight up beat everything, i.e. Cavalry and Tanks, but that's a balance issue, not a design issue). It's rather annoying. And to be fair a lot of people do the same thing for Civ 5/6, whose combat has problems but otherwise works exactly as it should in most situations. The difference being that while stacks are easy to parse and understand and, most importantly, write an AI for, those 1UPT systems are a mess that's difficult to get a grasp on in anything further than surface level and in which an AI is hopelessly overmatched against any competent human. EL manages to somehow have the worst of both worlds of stacks and 1UPT which is why I really hope they figured out how to make it work in this new game. Cause I am not filled with confidence right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
i'd just like a game where ranged unit spam wasn't so superior to anything else civ 5 and 6 had that problem and from what i've played of EL it's there too
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Ranged spam is effective because it's like a form of stacking: it's one of the few ways you have of concentrating force. Same reason why bombers are so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
I usually really enjoyed the 1UPT battles in Civ 5/6; but I bailed on the majority of my games at the thought of the thousands of clicks required to move a late-game army to the other side of the map. I really wish units travelled in something called a march or a convoy that could be infinitely stacked and moved super quick, but unpacked into 1UPT mode to actually fight.KOGAHAZAN!! posted:I've been tooling around with ideas to "fix" Civ VI's combat for a while now. It goes like this: If nothing else, they'd be really solid board game rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:If nothing else, they'd be really solid board game rules. Thinking of Civ as a not-at-all-balanced board game seems correct to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Stellar Monarch has manual fleet control though? Does it have an auto mode too? No idea, it was just the first thing that came to mind, I haven't actually played it for more than about 5 minutes
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2019 07:02
|
|