>>322856819 That would be them admitting it was a bad idea in a first place, so no it will still be 1upt.
I think they can make it work better with bigger maps and smarter AI, but then again, they were never good with AI. I would hope for something like heroes or TW series, when you use stacks on the map but n battle you somehow transfer to a 1UPT mode.
Assyria and Babylon intermixed, through both conquest and culture. But basically, they both took their religion, legal systems and writing from the previous civ (Sumer). Though not much is known about it beyond the tablet of kings and theories about writing from pre Assyrian pottery.
>couldn't you say similarly about Rome and Byzantium? You can make a case that lots of civs in the game that could have been one civ have been split into two groups. Aztecs and Spain. Portugal and Brazil. England and Celts. England and America. etc.
I don't really have a problem with it as long as the different civs have enough unique aspects to warrant it. What I do find stupid is there's like 12 different Islamic civs in the game, but they still refuse to put in Israel because of 'controversy'.
hopes: - 1upt remains but unlimited non-military units and military units can move through one another - working online that doesn't become desynced every five minutes - AI that doesn't take minutes to take turns - engine improvements that stop the endgame from bringing even powerful computers to a crawl - no more ridiculusly unreasonable punishments just for expanding - no more orphaned units - easy way to select large groups of units - better pathfinding and no pathfinding cancellation if the path is temporarily obstructed
predictions - no more religion - no more spying - no more trading - no more world congress - like 10 civs - bugs up the wazoo - DLC - memes - tablet UI - baba yetu dubstep remix
Honestly, all they need to do is allow for one UPT of each type of unit. Meaning you can have one civilian (worker/great person), one melee unit (warrior/Calvary) and one ranged unit (archer/artillery) all occupying the same space. This would allow for a lot better army movement and better tactics. But also not be broken stacks.
Israel influences 3/4 the civs currently in the game. Also, with region being a big part of Civ V, why skip over the most obvious religious civ? Also, they have Judaism as one of the 12 major religions...but not the civ that uses it.
1upt was never a bad idea, and honestly its WAAAAAY better then the shit that was 4. I think some moderate stacking would be ok, like a melee unit and a ranged unit...but then they would have to massively nerf ranged units since they completely dominate the entire game right now.
But no, stacks should never come back...they are an awful relic of the past that was never good.
Israel and Judah are two different things. Basically, if you would want someone like David or Solomon as a leader, it has to be Israel. If you picked Judah, it would be run by someone after the fall to Babylon.
>>322860204 They have a religion and a city state. That's an OK representation for a place that size and it does recognise the influence of the Jewish people. At the same time it seems arguably disproportionate to have an Israeli civ itself. Not that there isn't disproportionate representation already.
>>322856048 They've been doing that since 3. Do you even remember how busted vanilla Civ 3 was?
The problems with 5 weren't that there weren't enough systems or features. The problems were that the AI sucked even worse than usual, 1UPT didn't add enough strategic depth to make up for what a pain in the ass it was, and the UI was awful. Adding religion and tourism and whatever else they jammed in there was just trying to cover up the underlying bad game.
>Not that there isn't disproportionate representation already. That's the point. Even if Israel didn't have an empire that took over all the land of Europe and the Middle East, it spawned religious movements and culture that did take over those areas.
At best, its more influential than something like Songhai or Ethiopia. Which Ethiopia itself is a country which claims ties to Israel. So we can have a civ which considers itself the thirteenth tribe of Israel, and a dozen different civs who consider themselves direct descendants of Abraham...but not Israel itself?
>>322860767 what's the difference? - carved out territory they didn't deserve by military force - created an endless series of conflicts in the areas they conquered\occupied - extremely poor human rights record and plenty of innocent blood on their hands - refuses to act diplomatically - propped up by other, richer regimes who have an interest in retaining power in the middle east
the only difference is that the media don't like ISIS because they're not fucking jewish
>>322861248 They've obviously been working on BE and Civ 6 simultaneously (it would be insane if they weren't).
>>322861356 Depends on how they're doing leaderheads this time. If it's like Civ V, one per civ seems appropriate as creating the leader was probably a lot of work. I really liked the native language aspect of the leaders in V.
>>322861345 Israel probably won't be in the game for a lot of the same reasons Hitler isn't... it's just going to cause a lot of Issues, and it's not worth the trouble when there's so many other options. (It won't get the game banned in Germany though)
>>322861356 I think Civ V had about the right number for launch, given the way they customized empires with one unique "power" per civ (the powers weren't that great though). Civ IV was obviously going to expand until they had most of the trait combinations covered but I don't think they'll go back to that. I'm okay with a low number at launch (12 or so) if the civs are well-balanced and interesting.
>>322862026 >they made them all speak english before Civ V? Civ IV had unit dialogues in native languages but it all meant the exact same thing. I don't think they used languages in the ones before that.
>>322861676 That native language aspect was just a little polish, it does not affect the game at all. They should scratch that shit and make at least two leaders per civ except maybe Sumerians where except Gilgamesh you dont really have many names from which to pick. Just like in Civ IV, two leaders with different traits. They should have stick with that.
I want two leaders per civ, each one focusing on a different playstyle. For example, one can be military focused, the other culture focused. But it would only be viable if each leader also had different Uniques.
As for effort, Fraxis has made hundreds of millions off Civ V alone. They can afford to make a second set of leader animations. The question is, will they?
On that note, I actually hope they keep a similar style for animations as they did in Civ V. It was an excellent blend of exaggerated design trying to look somewhat realistic. Whatever company did those animations should make a full CGI movie.
>>322857457 Let Civilization continue to be the single franchise in the entire world that remembers based Pedro exists.
>>322860039 >and bring back multiple leaders Better yet, bring back DYNAMIC LEADERHEADS. Having leaders start in just a plain tunic and slowly morph into their traditional clothes was one of the things I loved the most in III.
Though a glaring problem with 1 leader per civ is the extreme likelihood of getting the same ones in every game. If you ever want to play a German, Greek or Celtic leader who isn't Bismarck, Alexander or Boudicca (grill) you're probably fucked.
Did they fixed Beyond Earth yet? I bought the base game at the sale because the discount was fairly good, but I'm not buying the expansion until I either know it's good or there's another meaningful discount.
>>322861769 germany was a unification of many smaller states which were politically unstable and became even more politically unstable. you can't really compare naziism to israeli politics. naziism was a product of a very specific set of social and economic circumstances which arguably goes back to german wwi propaganda and all of the diplomatic fuckups at the end of the first world war, and it never really had much public support.
france is an old-ass country and historic great power, most [although not all] of france's atrocities happened within france itself. also not comparable
i don't know much about japan but i don't think they tick all those boxes either. they do have a lot of blood on their hands but iirc they've been a pacifist nation for half a century so i gotta give them credit for that
>>322861774 >>322861982 i like to cause trouble on internet forums however the fact that people like me waffle so much about israel is almost certainly part of the reason it won't be included. that said, recognising israel isn't exactly the political statement it once was.
>>322862918 BE was broken from the start, didn't sell to well and not enough people are playing it to justify another expansion. i think\hope that BE was always just supposed to be a small holdover and that the real deal is coming at some point
>>322862934 I got civ 2 in 9th or 10th grade, and my school had a science teacher back then who was eerily similar to the science advisor. But no matter how hard i studied, he would never say i was number one in science.
(note: i didn't study very hard, i was playing civ 2 for most of high school)
>>322857457 I expect a "make your own civ" system. They already basically have that in beyond earth.
>Chose a source civ and get a small bonus similar to the source civ >Chose a method of independence/establishment each with its own bonuses >Chose a "defining moment" each with its own bonuses >Chose defining culture traits like "warlike" or "technologists" to spec your civ towards a victory
>>322863602 Would it be worth it? Based on the player stats seems like it's really not that popular. It could go the route of SMAC and XCOM and get 1 expansion only. They'd probably be better off releasing another Civ V expansion.
>>322864165 >and the warmongering causes everyone to gang up on you at once.
The AI ALWAYS gangs up on you if you are in any position to win. Its one of the major shortcomings of the game. The AI does not act like its a leader of a civilization. It acts like its playing a game.
>>322864613 Europa Universalis is also a computerised board game [well, it was, at some point] and the AI is very good at acting like an actual country, focusing on its own interests rather than ganging up on the player unless the player asks for it.
>>322864687 Amongst other things, the first expansion added multiplayer, and the second expansion made multiplayer playable... sort of. Civ 3 didn't get a lot of new systems because they were mostly trying to get the old systems to work.
>>322864663 No its not. It makes the game very stale. I'm not saying the AI shouldn't try to win. I'm saying they need to make it smarter and have self preservation and proper reactions and interactions.
In Civ 5 I dont even attempt to do anything diplomatically or use the world congress because there is no political maneuvering. There is no depth. The second you are in a good spot to win the denunciations flow and the system falls apart.
I've watched the AI who in NO way had a chance of doing anything to me declare war on me and attack. I wiped their whole army in one turn and then conquered them in one turn once I reached their borders. The ONLY reason the AI would have done that is if at that point the AI stopped playing as individual civs and played as a collective to stop me from winning.
>>322864613 Ahh but if you take that stance then it is not a proper representation. Humans will gladly go for second or even third place. Humans are also smart enough to know what is a good choice or a bad choice.
>tfw you know this will never happen because Firafix has become utilitarian as all hell and steadily eliminates every single gameplay element that is there for immersion or fun rather than strictly balance reasons.
>>322854749 >Announcement soon lads, I can feel it. They still havent finished Beyond Earth. It will need more work, more DLC, more patching. Why cripple the already low interest in it and its potential sales by announcing what is essentially a sequel? It hasnt even been heavily discounted on Steam yet. I very much doubt we will see any announcements whatsoever in the next few months. Earliest possible I can see it happening is E3, and thats generous too. Get fucking real.
On a side note, if you want your passion for Civ5 rekindled, try to community patch pack, six mods by Gazebo from Civ Fanatics that change everything, most notably rebalancing the tech tree, how unhappiness works and how the AI wages war.
>>322866981 Holy roman empire is just germany divided Canada and australia is just fucking britain, and maybe france in the case of canda. deal with it. It was colonized by them only 200 years before, and they have mostly the same culture and language, just like US. Sioux were in civ iv alread.
From my standpoint, there is no representation of the balkans except greece. So maybe magyars or serbs or bulgarians. And since we have native Americans, then maybe native syberians. Like Yakuts, Uzbeks or Kyrgys.
>>322857457 Siam is basically Khmer, same as Songhai is basically Mali. Its a different government/dynasty ruling over the same land, people and culture. If we'd add all civilizations based on that, we'd end up with several versions of Persia.
>>322867649 I didnt buy it, and havent touched it since I pirated it on release and spent a week trying to figure out what the fuck they were thinking. It was too simple and too safe, and by lacking the familiarity of a historical setting, too confusing to realize what tech does what, whats a wonder, what these stupid pseudo-physics word imply and so on.
However I'd lose respect for Firaxis if they ditch it and leave it as is, even if I personally wont be playing it more. They released a game, and they better fucking patch it up and support it for a while. And I think they shall. Civ5 too got smashed on release, and they kept supporting it, turning it into a success. Probably wont work this time, but they better try.
>>322867835 Seems more like it's up to 2K rather than Firaxis. It's pretty obvious it didn't sell particularly well so they may view it as not particularly worth continuing, - they may prefer the team working on it to merge with the team developing the next main title.
Civ 5 was at least tolerable on a basic level. BE was....well an abomination upon all that is a 4x game. It would take one hell of an update to bring it up to respectable levels. As it is...It just feels generic. no flavour, no uniqueness, nothing to make you play a different way. It just feels boring. It felt like they were trying to copy Endless Legend with the multi varied tiles and oddities that added some cool factor to the game, but failed hard.
Literally the entire time i tried playing BE...I kept asking myself...why not just play Endless Legend or Civ 5?
>>322868219 It gets better with rising tide but I agree it lacks a lot in comparison. It lacks a religion/philosophy system, though it tries to emulate this with social policies. It lacks more diverse unit types and bonuses. There are no special units, and it lacks the sense of.progression given by separate era tiers
>>322868219 >It would take one hell of an update to bring it up to respectable levels That is what everyone thought about civ V untill gods and kings, and BNW. And even after those two, I still cant force myself to play it, but from what I see many people are playing that fucking abomination of a Civ and they are enyoing it.
>>322868219 >BE was....well an abomination upon all that is a 4x game.
If anything, it was TOO SAFE. It wasnt an abomination, because they didnt take risks. Its 4X Game: The Game. Its the most mediocre mediocre mediocre game. Its not terrible, or an abomination, its just dull and bland. No character.
>>322868542 It has melee soldiers, ranged soldiers, tanks, jets, artillery, melee ships, ranged ships, submarines and carriers as of RT. Each of these units has multiple permutations dependent on your philosophical orientation and your score in each. This sounds like a lot, but functionally speaking they all perform more or less identically except at the end tier of upgrades, and even then variation is slight
Stations are just glorified trading posts who rarely offer quests, Civ leaders mostly lacked personality until RT, and even now most of them are just... Meh
Only Koslov, Chinese chick, Indian milf, Dindu Chief, Hutama and Arab waifu have anything approaching a personality.
>>322867212 Romania/Dacia, Serbia/Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Canada and Australia are the most often requested civs that never ever make it in. Maybe add Mexico if you consider them different from the Aztecs. Although with what I see on youtube clips from how drug dealers act, I think thats straight up aztec shit.
>>322869180 PS oh o forgot the various philosophy units, though since you earn affinity points by researching techs you can theoretically have all of them. There is nothing Civ unique, beyond a single leader bonus
>>322869180 >>322869346 Civilization has archers, infantry, cavalry, anti-cavalry on land, bombers and fighters in the air, ranged ships, melee ships, and anti-ships on land. Its the same thing. They just get more visual upgrades, like going from a spearman to a lancer.
>>322869447 Speaking strictly from Civ V, at least It's missing bombers, defensive infantry [pikemen] and missile units though. Aren't there any missile units in the game? There aren't any superweapons, are there?
When I played Civ III when I was younger I absolutely fell in love with the way nuclear missiles were portrayed in the game, they looked threatening as hell and felt amazing to use, but sadly every game since then never lived up to my expectations. Even the models for them looked goofy in IV, and V wasn't very good either.
I think it would be really neat if the new expansion made alliances and empires feel more epic in size.
Like for example, lets say i'm beating korea into the stone age. I would have the ability to offer him a deal where he becomes a sort of puppet state of mine, he gets the benefit of having all my technologies researched in half the time, in return I get a fraction of his culture, science etc. We would also be bound to fight in the same wars and stuff. You could probably also work Tourism in their so that nations that are dominated by your culture will be easier to puppet and such.
In the same token it would be neat if you could fund a city state to the point where it would become a puppet nation for you, if you spend something like, idk 3000 gold he would build a settler and start it's own nation.
I don't know, these are just ideas, I would like it if Civ V felt more epic in scale like this, without adding to the micromanagement.
As far as Civs are concerned, I don't really have any I want, but I would rather have new leaders if it meant we could have more of them.
never ever >cleopatra, catherine more or less guaranteed, its already hard to get female leaders, they cant skip on the legit ones >tito nobody outside the balkans cares, and people on the balkans dont buy video games bulgaria, romania and serbia are never going to be in a civilization game, despite deserving it
Kingdom of Israel / Israel Leader: King Solomon / Prime Minister Ben-Gurion Unique unit: Maccabi swordsman. Drafted with 1 pop cost from a city with majority religion you own the holy city of. / Arrow 3 missile unit. 75% to intercept a nuclear attack in its radius (one per city). Unique Building: Synagogue, replaces shrine. +2 faith, provides resistance to inquisitors. / Mossad safe house. Replaces Police Station. -25% enemy spy stealing rate, +5% spy effectiveness (stacks).
>>322870667 that was 15 years ago, when usa and russia were political allies, and everybody was saying how the cold war was stupid, ussr wasnt so bad after all, and the whole "revisionist history" pop culture started
now granted, i do think that the ussr is getting smashed way too hard by historical analysts, and i am against censorship like disallowing stalin in a civ game, but the public opinion today wouldnt allow it in the last several years the internet exploded, forums exploded, and every single person has an opinion on politics and history, and they mostly agree stalin was terrible. a popular meme that many people will repeat is "hitler was bad, but stalin was worse" and such, and its been featured in many documentaries since civ3 released. also worth noting that in 2000 video games were the rebels, they were showing graphic violence despite everyone judging, soon we had gay romances in rpgs and display of lesbian kisses (think of the children!), we had postal and so on. now video games are the establishment. we cant have stalin in a video game, as the player character, whom you win the game as.
>>322870928 >the AI tries to win >the AI tries to prevent you from winning
Those make perfect sense when you consider its a game, but feel awkward if you are "roleplaying" and consider it an alternative history setting. I'd hate to say this, but what you are complaining about is that Civ5's diplomacy is too gamey.
>>322871032 Yes, I am. It doesn't make sense for an AI that's been my best friend from hundreds of turns, whom I share an ideology with and have helped them against their enemies to turn on me just because I'm getting close to a science victory or something even when they have no chance in hell of doing anything.
>>322871168 Yeah, Stalin's traits were kind of garbage, I think he was Protective and something else. You wanted at least one of the good traits, Financial or Expansive or Cultural usually. You didn't want Stalin in your game anyways because then how would Cathy show up ):
>>322871032 It has the problem that in some aspects it tries to be simulation while in others it tries to a player. It fails at both, not even just because those things are somewhat contradictory. The AI for example becomes suicidal sometimes when it makes no sense either way.
>>322871345 >I'm pretty sure this wasn't a problem in IV Depending on difficulty, it was. On high difficulty you'd get random declarations of war when you are winning, on lower ones you'd have AIs with superior armies leave you to win despite being able to crush you statistically.
>>322871369 Players can be suicidal in the same way in multiplayer.
>I am winning a game. >My neighbors, who are behind on tech and economy, and cant possibly catch up to me, band up and attack me. >They probably wont win, and by fighting me they are getting further behind the other players further away. >They are doing it as a gamble, to prevent me from winning for sure, and maybe, perhaps, by taking my cities they can come back into the game.
>>322871369 These things don't necessarily have to be contraditory, however. The very idea behind the historical cover of the game is that, by picking a civilization, you embrace the idea of taking traits of how it historically was. There's an inherent degree of roleplaying involved in the matter, it's inevitable. In that sense, by taking advantage of the historical themes it uses both to ease the player into what is expected of him and to lead him to better understand the game and the role of its mechanics and actors, the game also has to make concessions to that theme. It can't just say "ALRIGHT FAGBOY, WE'RE REACHING THE END, SO ALL PRETENSES ARE OFF, I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN A VIDEOGAME THIS ENTIRE TIME!"
>>322871629 There was such a thing as Venetian Empire, and they were a vanguard against the Ottoman Empire at a point. Dont know why they werent labeled Empire in the game. The Zulu technically too were an empire, since they ruled more than one people and vast land. However they didnt call themselves that, since they didnt have the notion of it, and the British only glorified them enough to call them a worthy opponent and not more. The Shoshone didnt even have a country. The other native american civilization, the Iroquois confederacy, also wasnt a proper country, let alone an empire, and their leader is a made up person. A fairy tale character. Also the Byzantium Empire and the Roman Empire are the same civilization, under different dynasties. Thats awkward. And depending on whom you ask, the Ottoman Empire or the Russian Empire also are the same thing.
>>322872074 That's the fault of collateral damage mechanic not stack inherently you dumb fuck. 1UPT makes turn take forever and AI can't cope with it strategically committing mass suicides to choke point.
>writes better AI
Yeah right newfags it hasn't happen for decades even in games 10 times simpler than civ and it's not gonna happen any time soon. Deal with it.
>>322872198 Only if we're using modern historiography as a source for the definition of Empire, because at the time [and roughly up until the 1800s when Napoleon decided to shatter the Holy Roman Empire] Empire had a very strict definition, and a republic most certainly did not fit that bill. You can't say that a Venetian Empire existed when that's pretty much retroactively applying a modern definition to an entity that was never understood as such at the time, that's like saying the Angevin Empire was a recognized political institution.
>>322872197 >And what new mechanics can they add? Mods already do enough, just incorporate them.
>unhappiness divided into poverty (depending on how much gold the city makes, meaning gold tiles are more important), entertainment (coliseum, theater, etc cultural building more important to build), religious (better have religious unity and purge heretics, missionaries more important), stuff like that >immigration - cities will lose population if they have considerably lower happiness than neighboring cities, and that population will go there; makes happiness a viable way to "conquer" enemies by reducing their population >remove city state bribes, instead build and send missionary like units called diplomats >new great person Great Diplomat who you can train from various diplomatic buildings, gives much more influence to city state >corporations and monopolies, rewards controlling more than half of a certain luxury, makes trading more complex and holding your 5 gold instead of trading them to gain a monopolist benefit >incorporate the events and decisions mod: semi-randomly get events that can give you a minor benefit or inconvenience, nothing game breaking, to shake up the cookie cutter builds good players often end up doing >make tile yields much more powerful, so that pillaging or occupying them can actively starve a city, or make it lose gold, and thus with the new happiness mechanics put it in high unhappiness; the city may then revolt, allowing for effective sieges instead of just assaults
>>322872521 One single change makes the AI much better at war. Right now AI makes all its movement decisions, then moves. This means that if the AI moves a unit, and reveals that there are enemies near, it wont attack them. They werent revealed before the moving started, and thus werent targeted for attack. Changing that, which a mod does, makes AI turns longer, but makes the AI much more capable. It can actually move, then attack, with ranged units, for example.
>>322872969 The spy isnt a unit that you need to build a diplomat center for, then train the unit for 7 turns or something, than give it promotions from whatever exp it has (given by the different era diplomacy buildings) to make it move faster, or give more influence, or also give some gold when used, then move it to the city state, click use, get influence, and get denounced by the current ally of the city state for trying to steal them. Also its random, I'd like to reduce randomness. I feel a diplomat unit and building type will benefit the game.
>>322872825 >Play EU4 >AI never declares war on me >Game is boring
The game inherently favors the defense, since the AI will almost never deny a defensive war call unless it's already completely ruined. The challenge comes more from figuring out when it's the best time for YOU to declare war on others, unless you're playing on some ungodly murder-land like the Baltics. That said, who are you playing as?
>>322873174 I've played every nation almost in every situation. I've played the baltics a hundred times and despite taking Danzig, despite taking neva, despite having absolutely no allies russia and poland never, ever declares on me.
>>322873343 Partially true. Refusing a defensive call to arms carries a hefty prestige hit, and your prestige has a light impact on your diplomatic reputation.
>>322873419 Well that's certainly an oddity. Playing as Teutonic Order is a wonderful exercise of grinding every single drop of your manpower reserves into the dirt fighting Poland only to have Denmark and Brandenburg decide to eat you a couple days later.
>>322873357 By the time they get there, you're already an empire. Give me 30 years in any region and I'll own it, unless AI bonuses are on.
>>322873512 I just formed Persia from Tabarestan, a two province minor stuck between the timurids and qara. One try and I didn't even have to cheese it because those fucking idiots never declared war on me.
>>322873673 >By the time they get there, you're already an empire empire as in powerful or empire as in rank? Getting to empire rank is actually fairly hard in west africa given how dirt poor its provinces are
Since you guys seem to know what you are talking about, I have both Civ 4 and Civ 5 with all expansions. Which should I play? I hear Civ 4 is better but I don't know how to play the games at all, so all the good shit might be lost on me. In addition to this, how the fuck do I learn to play this shit. Everytime I play a game it just draws on and on and I don't really understand if I'm meant to be killing bitches or doing something else.
>>322873903 What's the issue? Just go to war and conquer what you need. At one point with Tabarestan I had 0 legitimacy and 75% of my provinces were overseas and they still didn't want to take my TWO CoTs.
>>322873919 Power, although many many nations can form empires through easy decisions just by culture shifting. I'm in a Ternate game (OPM in Indonesia) where I conquered Borneo, culture-shifted and formed Malaya to get permanent claims all over Malacca.
>>322874539 And balling religions, the issue comes from getting CBs. Put a Barque in the Phillipines to Justify Trade conflict with Makassar, make sure they ally that other nation (Luwu?) because you can't core Makassar otherwise.
It's very relaxing, every nation you conquer means more trade flowing into Malacca, though I'm thinking of moving it to Bengal. If only Ming would stop allying Ahuttaya and everyone else to impede my process.
>>322874378 I have both on steam because they are cheap as shit, with all expansions. I don't think there is much point to me modding the game before I even understand how to play it, so I guess I'll go with 5. Shit is legit confusing though, need to find like a youtube of the basics.
>>322875113 European trade can be interesting if its less about using it as a tool to win the game and more to see just how much money you can squeeze out of the rest of the world with a minimum amount of conquest
things like getting a trade income of 2000+ as Venice never stops being hilarious
>>322875042 I did that, but it wasn't that helpful. I feel like I'm either overthinking the game or there is more going on that advisers tell me. For instance, I have no idea what culture does. Advisers say that culture expands territory and you can win the game from it later on. It's so vague. Do I get a bonus from expanding territory? How do I win the game? Should I focus on culture depending on what my resources are? Fuck if I know, I really think I'm overthinking it.
>>322875413 >Do I get a bonus from expanding territory Yes, more tiles to work with and more resources >How do I win the game With culture? By producing so much culture that all the tourists goes to your country and then you will hold a major influence over a country.
1: It gives you policies, to pick from the culture menu. Policies are constant bonuses to various aspects of your empire and highly useful. 2: It causes your cities borders to automatically expand one tile at a time, useful for reaching resources near a city or simply to get more land to work as your city grows (tiles can also be bought with gold) 3: Protects you from tourism influence: useful because tourism is a win condition and generally a pain in the arse lategame
Culture generally speaking should not be ignored but also should not be the entire focus of your cities given you will need to actually grow to abuse the bonuses it gives
>>322874328 >It's all voiceacting. That's my point. It wouldn't matter if he was reading an audio book or doing the lines for a civ game, the other anon was a retard for making it sound special for being vidya
>>322876596 Even so the publisher may not see the monetary incentive. Enemy Within was well-received and a lot of people expected a second expansion for it because it's Firaxis, but they rolled it into a complete edition pretty quickly. I'm not saying it's impossible, there's still a reasonable chance it could happen. But there's also reasonable chance it won't.
>>322876958 Scotland and Ireland have never influenced anything of importance. They were never even regional powers. The only time they were present in big world events is when they were acting as parts of UK, or England's slaves.
What difficulty should I be playing on in Civ 5 if I want wars to actually be hard?
The AI is hilariously bad. Like disembarking their units randomly because they have ADD and cant just fortify but have to move each turn, leaving them to be destroyed in one hit by my ships or my cities.
trait: >If threatened by war, swedin will surrender one of their cities at random >If Islam is ever in the game, the entirety of sweden will denounce its former religion and adopt Islam Unique unit: >The cuck: -2 population in the capitol every time you receive a social policy but increases you culture income *1.5 >Refugee camp: If a neighboring country is at war with another civ, your borders are automatically made open and potential armies can wander into your territory.
I wish a good system for simultaneous turns existed, MP is super fun but in my experience it's impossible to finish and most times the game ends after several hours of pretty much solo gameplay. What if we had the turn split into 2 parts? First a simultaneous part that's building research diplomacy and all that stuff, and then the second half that would be movement and combat, which would be normal turns. So, a turn starts: 1. All players choose production research etc at the same time and click end turn when ready. 2. After they are all done, they now take turns like always to move units and fight with them. I think this would make it go a shitton faster.
>>322878519 It would actually be a nice idea to have something like that.
>-1 population on social policy, but 50% more culture in capital. >Refugee camp - whenever a civilization conquers a city (normally halves the population of the city) you get that population in your capital.
>>322879630 >>322878920 /pol/'s Sweden: >UA: Cuck capital of the world: Whenever you adopt a policy, lose one population in your capital. Culture output of capital doubled. >UU: Swedish journalist (Unique Great Writer): Cant create a great work of writing, but gives double culture when used. >UB: Refugee camp (Unique Barracks): Doesnt provide bonus experience to units. Whenever any known foreign city is conquered, the lost population moves to your capital, no more than one per turn for as many turns as needed.
Actually its pretty balanced, I think, although it railroads you into a particular play style. I'd give it a run on Deity.
>>322878569 Pretty much any other Celtic leaders. Boudicca isn't particularly representative. Off the top of my head you could probably have Brennus, Brian Boru, Vercingetorix, Owain Gyndwr, Fergus the great, Kenneth I.
ho man my population was dying by the thousands every week but so were the other race's populations income is determined by the size of the population so not only were other civs' population dying but so were their coffers
funny because that plague was what allowed me to destroy everyone else when i researched the cure
>>322884635 sure whatever. i just mean that areas get way too crowded way too easily. it's really fucking hard to conquer a player's nation if he has any forests, hills and mountains in his territory. it just becomes a horrible fuckfest stalemate of melee units slowly running into each other and dying. i can understand that they wanted territory matter a bit, but i can have 3 times the troops of a player and still get fucked while attacking.
>>322885374 Man I really want to play on bigger maps but the game slows to a fucking crawl. More AI/bigger armies means turn times slow to a crawl, and in BNW the trade routes don't increase their range which is a cunt.
they should add space time travel for example , i m starting a french empire in the capital is paris , (which is ancient representation of babylon) , i have the space time travel , go back to the babaylonien area , as my my capital paris gets ideological , geo-political bonus , i can conquer jersulam , (babylon has won wars with jeruslam) .... etc etc
>>322888307 In my last game I played, in which I swore to finish a Marathon speed game on Deity, he managed to settle six cities before I settled my second. SIX cities. And his sixth was two tiles from where I wanted my second, right as my settler got there. I was visibly upset. Luckily, he got declared war on before I ragequit, so I just took the opportunity and declared myself in 20ish turns. Placed my city, took two more. He spent the rest of the game denouncing people from his moved capital and settling islands and the south pole with shitty outposts.
>>322889067 >And his sixth was two tiles from where I wanted my second This shit really pisses me off. The AI often settles worthless spots, but then you get a global diplo penalty if you raze even the shittiest cities because massacring cities is evil or something.
>>322890386 Still, negative penalties can spiral into game-long bad relationships. I recall a game around BNW's release >AI walks over a great expanse and plonks their second city right beside mine >immediately take it and raze it because it's a nuisance >everybody now fucking hates me, diplomacy is basically impossible for most of the game
I don't know if they've improved it with patches but that was incredibly infuriating.
So regardless of civ tier lists or how useless some traits and UB + UU, domination and science victories, the only 2 viable victory types in higher difficulties are completely tied into the amount of land owned.
I've been simulating civs on Deity difficulty and pitting them up against each other, civs that go tradition or do not have a high city settling bias lose the game on every test I've ran.
Countries like England focus so much on capitol growth and early game wonders that they end up with 3 cities while everyone else is on their sixth. I've watched England sit there with 4 cities for 100 turns before all the land mass is claimed and they're stuck with the ass end of an island.
Russia, the shoshone and Denmark will almost always win, Russia is a T1 civ anyway so their chance of winning is almost certain, they claim the most land, they have the most production to out military any other civ, and they have the most science to out tech the opponent and have an almost certain science victory because they will always get the international space station.
A player can exploit their civs abilities and go as Liberty as any of these highly aggressive civs but the point being that the NPCs AI difficulty can easily be manipulated, you can just go up against tradition civs and forward settle, Deity is easy if you don't go up against Liberty civs.
>>322893491 The player is handicapped, Deity civs start with 2 settlers and 3 warriors, get extra production, science and growth that they spend in the first couple turns. So two 1 turn scouts, or a 1 turn shrine, 1 turn tech, and 1 turn pop. They get this huge advantage whereas the player starts with a settler and warrior.
It makes sense for the player to go tradition as it's not exactly lucrative for you to be settling too many cities like they will. The strategy of going tradition as a player is to out grow your neighbors and have the hammers to win against them when war is declared, AI warfare is dogshit and a cripple with 3 fingers shared between 2 hands could get the warfare advantgae on a deity civ.
What I'm discussing what the AI civs tend to do when going tradition and Liberty as openers. Every single game a liberty opener has won, every single time.
>>322894008 Oh, if you are talking about just AI, then yes, its about stealing as much land as possible fast, then consolidating. Still, these sprawling AIs often get fucked if they get someone opening with Honor next to them.
>>322894196 Rome, Siam and Russia consistently do well in my Deity games. I dont know why, but they are always top dogs from start to finish. Seems their behavior is really good. Carthage, Germany and Byzantium are a bit hit or miss, but they too can deliver similar long term tough empires. Attila, Shaka and Genghis Khan explode early and then decay down.
>>322894159 There was a game where Denmark forward settled Japan and the nips warred early and took the city, I had almost ruled them out because they were trapped between two civs and 2 city states but they surprised me by coming back. But as the game went on and they continued to skirmish with Denmark, they ran out of units and their lands got annihilated by Denmark's troops.
>>322894701 Honestly I think what makes AI America civ pretty bad is that it focuses too much on defence, it doesn't go growth so it has cities that dont grow enough to have the production to spam settlers, and it doesn't try to get those T1 wonders as often as other civs that go liberty.
People who dislike 1upt are those who did jackshit in the first 100 turns of Civ4 like not exploring your surroundings to see where the barbarians, and other AI, invest so much in wonders at the cost of other essentials, and don't know anything about how to handle diplomacy when playing with certain AI neighbors who will declare war when the relations with you is "pleased". These ppl then have open borders with one of these AI and have exactly 1 warrior defending their city. When one of these AI then has a stack of doom next to their border and beeline straight to your city, they post stuff like this.
>>322900891 I'm willing to bet creating a complex AI that poses Deity level challenge without bonuses is well beyond the ability of Firaxis' programmers. And even if it wasn't they have 0 incentive to do it because good AI rarely sells games.
Three things need to happen if the next Civ game is to be a success
1. Actual government types that define how you play the game. Despotism allows you to do everything but doesn't work for big empires. Theocracy allows you to wage war against all infidels with added morale boosts but you can never declare ware on a civ of the same religion. Democracy gives you big boosts but extremely difficult to fight wars etc.
2. Some sort of limited stacking. Fighting tactical battles on a strategic map doesn't work. At the very least they should allow us to merge 3 units into one or something so then maybe it's still simple enough for the plebs.
3. Diplomacy victory based on how your population feels rather than how the leaders feel. Otherwise it's way too gamey. So if someone is about to win diplo victory you might be forced to close the borders and spread some propaganda or something instead of just deciding to vote for someone else.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.