|
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. This sounds like a very boring combat system that will instantly get bogged down by the AI making 40 single unit "armies" and the player being forced to spend multiple turns dealing with each one. Kind of like total war, but worse.
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:You would probably just kill that one unit army in one turn. They aren't going to force battle to take 9 turns. I hope so. I just have flash backs to total war/lords of the realm, where even a 100 peasant army vs 10000 knights that was auto-calculated wasn't wiped out and was still able to raze/pillage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
FZeroRacer posted:I'm...slightly disappointed? I really loved Amplitude's world building and design with the Endless series. Them going the Civ route and essentially sticking to just human history is kind of bland, considering how many games have gone over the broad strokes in various forms. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Maybe. The risk of trying to avoid a boring endgame is that they might make the endgame come shockingly early. This is a good thing though. If someone wins, the game should end (after asking the player if they want to keep going, ofc).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
that concept of multiple game winners sounds pointless though? so your number went up and you got a win screen? why not just start the game already in the "won" state what is the difference? i'd also be wary of random mechanics causing your empire to crumble after you "won" assuming that you are actually supposed to keep playing, as that is undermining the goal of an empire building game. i'm of course assuming this is an empire building game and not a sandbox with terribly implemented historical features. like that lovely overhyped Will Wright game. e: a Spore equivalent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
typically at the end of a 4x game there are no opponents left, that is the end state of victory. cultural victories etc are pretty hallow as they don't actually meaningfully change anything in the game state. Civ6 when you "win" via culture what actually happens mechanically?what makes it a victory? why can't the theocratic regime just burn your country to the ground? alternatively why does my full communist country care about some fairytale sone people believe. with going to space it can at least be seen as giving up on earth and spreading throughout the stars making it impossible for those left behind to catch up, plus it's less tedious then have to manage a carpet of units to conquer all the opponents capitals. with a diplomatic victory you have essentially created a one-world government with you as the first leader. what would fame "do" that makes it a victory? ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:In 20 years of playing 4x games I think I could count the number of games I won via conquering all other players on one hand, personally. Most of the questions you're asking here have a pretty simple answer: "because the game is over". You are correct. "The game is over" but it's arbitrary and thus unfulfilling. If no more opponents are around, that is unambiguously over. If you win via diplomacy, the game is over, but you were saved the mop up period. With culture or fame or whatever, nothing actually happened yet the game is over. As far as multiple era of civs, that is a thing in the rhyse and fall mods, and also in the best Civ4 mod, Fall From Heaven and I think Caveman to Cosmos also did it. It's fairly unfulfilling however, because if you are playing for a narrative and suddenly you are in-charge of the last place team, you've missed the narrative and mid-game events are less meaningful and thus it's hard to create a narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:That video also indicates that they've got a province system similar to Endless Legend, predefined areas to be settled in. There's a nice clear shot of it around 2:35. Lame.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:These days I wish strategy game designers would just give up on the idea of an AI that plays the game the same way as a human. They never get it right and either the AI is a walkover or you have to give it so many bonuses that it stops engaging with some of the game systems. That works for many games, and many games should adopt that kind of system. However in a Symmetric Start game that idea is pretty frustrating to a player because like you said, you just give the AI so many bonuses that the game systems don't matter. For "history simulator" sandbox games I guess it's fine, but personally I'd rather a tight set of rules that the AI can actually play by rather then just 40 game systems that are orthogonal to each other.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Popete posted:This game looks so pretty I really want it to be good but the amalgamation of civilizations and dynamically changing between them over time makes it seem like they might just all end up being same-ish and indistinguishable from a game play perspective. That is always a problem in game design. If you give the player too many choices, it makes each individual choice less impactful. I could easily see human kind falling into the trap of cultures just being a set of modifiers. Carthage give +5% to Navy's, whereas Phoenicians gives +5% to Army's. Meanwhile, England gives +20% to navy's and Germany give +20% to Industry! By the time you hit the modern era all your cultures are just a list of insignificant modifier's while you are battling with Giant Death Robots that benefit from nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I skipped Civ 4, but now I want to grab it sort of just to play that mod... Skipping Civ4 is a huge mistake, it is the best civ by far. Unmodded is a very tight and well-paced game with an AI that can actually play by the rules. At a difficulty of Prince or above, you will actually be challenged, and can actually lose the game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
I think it's just flavor text so calling it renaissance vs bronze age, vs information age or whatever is perfectly fine and great.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
Fame could be cool if done right or if era victories weren't static. Maybe one game the Ancient era victory is highest population, but the next it would be the most ancient boats, or the most map explored or something. You could even have all the victory conditions set up so that the same 7 conditions would exist across all games, but they would be in a random order. Or maybe there are 20 total conditions and each game you can look at your "history tab" and see which era would have which conditions, along with the rewards for each so that a good player could start planning their game strategy from turn 1, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same strategy each game. Lots of possibilities there. As for combat I just hope we don't have tactical combat cause that poo poo is boring and is the primary reason I never played any of the Endless games.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2020 08:48
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Dollars to doughnuts that the combat is in the vein of Endless Legend, i.e. map traversal of units that jumps into a miniature hex battlefield which represents the surrounding area. Looks like they made some noise about it differing from EL because it uses 'armies' rather than units, but it's not really clear what that means. tactical combat in most games is a terrible idea full stop. unless battles are very rare but very impactful, or the game is explicitly designed around battles, battles should be abstracted away as a rough measure of terrain/tech/production. it really isnt interesting to cheese the AI with ranged units behind pikes or whatever as you slowly advance on them to ensure you take minimal losses. or worse having to chase down straggler armies of three units each that can somehow pillage your territory and capture cities while the ai retreats every time you engage them. early microprose games threaded the needle as best you could with both tactical combat and empire development in moo, moo2 and mom. and of course the heroes of might and magic series did tactical combat right because the focus was on your army development whereas empire development was abstracted away so you didnt need to manage your cities. The endless series has both complicated/time-consuming empire management as well as multiple battles a turn and spawning "barbarian" units all of which has to be dealt with in tactical combat and the tactical combat itself isnt interesting at all, its pointless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:My favoured solution is huge discounts to research times based on the number of (neighbouring?) civs with that tech, combined with fun small first-to-discover bonuses to make the race still worthwhile. Exactly what Civ4 does.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:I'm liking a lot of what they are doing here, but I really dislike the pacing of the combat. It feels like combat takes an extremely tedious amount of time even for simple battles. It might just be due to there not being any kind of 'fast animation' toggle for the open dev, but i'm already finding myself dreading combat phases and attempting to avoid it at all possible. That's definitely not a good sign for me because I'm getting distracted and losing interest during every battle or siege that takes more than 5-10 minutes. Yea that's the biggest issue I have with civ5/6 combat taking multiple turns. The elegance of single attack, = battle resolved is much preferred especially in the end game when I have 40 cities pumping out 40+ units a turn and I'm trying to sweep the world and win a conquest victory.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://www.games2gether.com/amplit...enario-3?page=1 Seems like those aren't final numbers, or are scenario specific numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2020 02:31
|
|
.
|
Jumping in on this fairly blind. Buying the digital deluxe edition. Let's go!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:is there a way to downgrade a city back to an outpost? I got a bunch of bullshit cities from one of the minor AI factions and I'd like to turn them into one megacity Eventually yes. There is a technology that let's you merge cities together.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
SweetBro posted:It would be nice if you named your civilization and that was used as a primary identifier much like how you can create a flag/avatar. Yea agreed. It's cool to change civs through the era's, but there should be a primary identifier beyond the flag/color that persists. I started out with the +1 land-movement people then went to Rome and then went on a conquering spree. I gotta say the Roman Legions are extremely powerful and I was 100-0ing almost everything I fought. They have a guaranteed rear attack if they have a legion next to them, plus the romans can put one more unit in their armies which early in the game is a huge deal. I've been a bit disappointed in Cavalry so far, but I haven't explored any of the "hoard" mechanics yet. I just unlocked Teutonic Knights, but I think i'm going to restart and checkout some different map options. Water travel has been a slog. As for trading, is there any reason not to just buy everyone's luxury resources ASAP assuming you have the money? The trading mechanics seem interesting, but also a pretty binary choice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:But districts will include relevant information from if you already have the improvement. It just feels like an oversight. ah. That makes it much more interesting as a choice, especially if you want to build a unique district at all of your cities or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Ether Frenzy posted:How irritating is it to play a game for 12 hours and then find out it cannot be won or lost? We'll never know because goons love to defend bad things they're completely unrelated to, it's extremely good content I don't know man, the journey is the purpose of games like this, otherwise you can just go watch the ending vid on youtube or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 07:50
|
|
|
victrix posted:honestly these games really do need a fallout 1 style ending where it recaps your story, rather than just... 'You Win! Grats!' Old World and Civ4 and Alpha Centauri have game recaps. I think even Civ5 did too? Not sure about civ6 or Humankind though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 08:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:Isn't it only empty of major civilisations, meaning it's full of minor civs? I haven't seen too far into the game yet. Yea I'm sure the "New World" is full of "independent people" for you to subjugate or assimilate depending onw what you want to do. If you want a "new world" with civs on it, you can just choose 2 continents and the game will split the civs between the two continents so you won't see the other half of civs until you get the tech to cross the ocean.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Stacking wonders with Angkor wat seems to work. It produces 1 food for 1 faith. So I built Notre Dame and got 48 extra faith.. and 48 extra food. Hot drat. What happens when the city goes over the population limit? My capitol is at 35/33 population now. Maybe I should build some armies in there... I'd guess it would be 210 food to all your other cities, yea. It's bonkers and I love it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:PSA: The Hanging Gardens don’t make it clear that they count as a Luxury Manufactory, not an Extractor. That’s the district that lets you get “Wondrous Effects” if you have a monopoly on a Luxury. that is a huge distinction that wasnt at all clear by reading the description.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Jinnigan posted:do i have to unlock a specific tech to raze cities or something? i bullrushed my neighbors in the ancient era before they could get a second city up, and... didn't have enough warscore to take the city. then i reloaded the game to see if i could raze it before the force surrender screen. i ransacked the city but it takes 6 turns. the ransacking effect ends when you force the surrender. it's a bad mechanic, jerry! The speed of razing is related to the power of your stack. Early on even 4 Huns will take 4 turns or so to raze. But Upgrade them to Mongels and they will raze a city in one turn.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2021 07:18
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Why does it have to be capped at one thing at a time? That's a totally arbitrary limitation that a new game could easily remove if they wanted to. In Civ4 there are mods that allow civilizations to build multiple things a turn (Fall From Heaven allows this for some of their Civs). You are still limited to only one "type" of thing a turn though. So you can build say 4 archers, or two buildings, but not 2 archers and 1 building in the same turn. But yea I agree that the idea of only being able to build one thing a turn despite having excess production is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Has anyone tried to use the "Under One Banner" expansionist ability? When targeted at peaceful civs it says you need to be at war, but when I targeted it at someone I was at war with it said I needed to change diplomatic status.. I've gotten it to work in the early game, but it's a very niche ability. It costs gold and it takes multiple turns to do. Additionally if you are attacked while you are doing it, the ability is reset and you lose the gold and the turn progress. It seems to work only on unattached outposts' and only from civs you aren't at war with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:I want to play a game as the huns but I don't want to play until they fix that independent nation influence bug, which it seems like they are ignoring! I've not had any issues with resources but that bug is seriously game breaking. Why not just use the huns to eliminate the bugged player 3 and all of his independent states?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Your Computer posted:ask me how i got this achievement I assume a mammoth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Can you buy multiple things in one turn in the same city?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Fhqwhgads posted:I don't know the specifics of warscore, but I just finished a game on...I think the third highest difficulty?...Where I only had one war, only one real battle, really, and I took everything but their capital in the settlement. We both started at 100/100 War score from constant squabbling, and even though I only took one city (he had four cities each with at least 2 territories), and never set foot deeper in his territory, I still got all his stuff. I think it was because I had demands on pretty much every one of his territories because he was under my sphere of influence. So maybe if you have demands before you go to war, it's basically like claims in Stellaris/other 4xs. In the settlement All those territories were auto-checked for me and only were a tiny amount of warscore each. I'm willing to bet if I didn't have a list of demands before going to war, I wouldn't have been able to take any of them in the settlement. Yes this is how it works. If you go to war without building up a list of demands the rewards for winning the war are almost zero. If you demand a bunch of poo poo, go to war for it, and then win the war by getting their war score down to zero (make sure you occupy the city you are interested in), you will get all their poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It makes a difference how quickly you win the war. As the Huns I've won some prolonged wars without a single casualty and not collected much war score. I won a quick war once I got rifles, and was able to vassalize my enemy. This seems likely a problem too. A problem meaning the system that calculates your war score is obtuse so you have no idea how to get a good war score. Usually I don't feel pressured to win a war quickly so I'll just ignore it for a long time then eventually win it. Apparently that tanks your warscore so vassalization etc is basically impossible. So the only thing I get from winning the war are the cities I'm occupying, and even then I sometimes won't even be able to hold them so I'm better off just razing everything, ending the war, and then back settling.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:District costs do scale as you build more, just nowhere near as much as it should. That isn't really going to solve anything though except make maker's quarters even more important. But ultimately the problem is that there are a lot of bonuses that scale per-district and the main limiting mechanic to counter district spam is stability. Stability stops being a problem as soon as you spend around 5k gold to secure all the luxuries then at that point you should just be building maker's quarters since their benefit is compounding and unbounded. Nothing else matters. In a pretty short amount of time you can build everything in the game in a handful of turns at all your cities, and unless the AI actually tries to actually stop you before that inflection point (probably turn ~100 or so) you become unstoppable.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:War Support is one of those things that will make it reeeeeally hard to go back to Civ. War Support blows, might makes right and trying to do anything else is just compensating for a broken system. Last night I was trying to conquer a city and so to gain support I demanded they change religion, they demanded an outpost from me. Eventually their support got to 100, mine was around 55, so war had to be declared. Fine, whatever. I've got my army of elephants vs their basically neolithic era units. But I couldn't go to the next turn until I surrendered. There was no other option. Just a dumb forced surrender with thousands of gold of grievances or giving up tons of territory. Their "war score" was 210 vs my 150, so what the gently caress? They had no army so why do I give a gently caress about their "war score."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
That all happened in one turn, so ill reload an autosave and reject their demands and see what happens. Can someone break down how the war score and demands work?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:You should have rejected their demand of the outpost. This didn't work. I don't have the option to reject the demand. So if I go to war, it's an auto surrender. If I capture the city, it's still an auto-surrender. If I demand to convert to my religion, they reject the demand and then my only option is to withdraw my demand, or I have to go to war which is an auto-surrender for me. The thing is I don't even mind the idea of an auto-surrender, but they need to have a military unit to enforce that somehow (That I can destroy which should destroy their war score.) Otherwise it's just magic mechanic that make military units not do anything.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Half of Dracula posted:I'm under the understanding that only going to 0 war support should force you to surrender... is this not so? I'm not at zero war support though. I'm at 55.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2021 03:33
|
|