Unlabelled Civilization - Drawing: Montezuma

12/18/2017 10:49:00 am
A+ A- Print Email

Civilization - Drawing: Montezuma

Drawing: Montezuma

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 02:21 AM PST

Whatever they do with the expansion, they simply must fix war.

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 04:10 PM PST

Just finished my latest game playing as Khymer and suffice to say it went the same as all of my other games. Nubia was running away with the game in both science and culture and had started to build spaceports and the projects that go along with that. I was still using musket men while she had rocket artillery and modern armour. But knowing how this game goes, I declare war anyway so I can start to pillage her spaceports and stop a science victory. So how did it play out?

I won is the short answer. Despite surrounding one of my border cities with modern armours and rocket artillery, she attacked my city ONCE with one armoured infantry and I was easily able to defend it with ONE unit garrisoned. Not only this, I had an airport with 5 bombers on it right beside all this. Not only did they not pillage it, they refused to use anti aircraft as I started bombing her cities and claiming then. To cut a long story short, I was able to take all of her territory despite a laughably inferior army in both numbers and modernity. This put me above her in science and culture. All while this is going on I still had to put up with the other useless AI's denouncing me as a warmonger despite the fact they were busy conquering each other and wiping out city states.

Firaxis, I beg you: whatever you do with the expansion, fixing the AI's inability to play war should be your no 1 priority. You can add another 30 civilisations and governors and unique districts to your hearts content, but it remains utterly pointless if the AI is still dogshit.

You MUST fix this.

submitted by /u/FelicityJackson
[link] [comments]

Why wouldn't they make the hotkey Z?

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 07:45 AM PST

So I started a new Game with 12 Civs.. It seems I have my own Continent with all the City stats.. wtf

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 03:38 PM PST

When you check the scout that was trapped 200 turns ago

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 12:27 PM PST

My WIP of Montezuma

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 04:06 PM PST

I can't tell if my spawn is great or terrible

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 11:46 AM PST

Amazing Oracle placement by AI

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 02:20 AM PST

Advice on where to place my second city

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 07:40 AM PST

Saw this in Micheal’s, reminded me of Civ VI

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 08:43 AM PST

Best start I've ever had. Six luxuries and a mountain in range.

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 06:34 AM PST

History Summarized is a great series for learning about the history of different civilizations.

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 01:10 PM PST

I’m really happy for the expansion to come out, but fireaxis and 2k still fail to deliver the promised cross-platform multiplayer for Mac/Linux/Pc users a lot of us have bought the game for. New expansion means nothing more than further delays for this basic feature to be implemented

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 12:32 PM PST

Non-gamer wants to play Civ, would you recommend IV or V?

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 05:03 PM PST

I only played Civ II back in the mid nineties. I was surprised to see that according to many "best Civ game of all time" polls, Civ IV and Civ V were considered better. But I want to get this game for my wife who isn't a hardcore gamer. She will almost certainly never do any mods and won't invest more than a few hours a week. What would you recommend?

Thanks.

submitted by /u/razzendahcuben
[link] [comments]

Do we still like Turn 1 Wonders?

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 12:45 AM PST

Civ6 Very few civ clashes

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 06:07 PM PST

I have only played around 3 to 4 complete games, and I noticed that there were very few Ai vs Ai wars. I only noticed that Ai would declare war on city states but no AI vs AI large battle.

Is my observation correct? And how do large conflict happens?

submitted by /u/catterpie90
[link] [comments]

[Civ V] How do I know whether a Civ should be played tall or played wide?

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 10:33 AM PST

I was reading this post and one of the tips says:

Know your Civ, and know whether they are best for playing Tall (Less cities, higher population) or Wide (More cities, lower population). Go Tradition if they're best played tall, and Liberty if they're for playing wide.

Can anyone offer some insight on how to know which is best for any given Civ?

submitted by /u/Vocalyze
[link] [comments]

Just... what?

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 11:51 AM PST

Did I roll Carthage without realising?

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 07:59 AM PST

A modest proposal to mend mongering.

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 07:28 PM PST

So, I'm noticing a couple threads talking about warmongering, diplomacy et cetera. There are always threads about this. It's a consistent feature of any Civ forum it seems, since while most everyone disagrees about a lot of stuff, everyone seems to agree that the AI/Diplomacy in Civ is in some way busted (though how it's busted and to what degree, again, there doesn't seem to be much concensus on).

To that end I want to toss a thought I had into the ether here, see what others think about it. Is it good? Bad? Meh?

Moreover I want to ask a question: what do you think is the biggest issue with the AI in Civ 6? More importantly, what do you think can be done to improve your issue with it?

So here's my thought:

Warmongering needs to be a floating point number that is easily viewable on not just yourself, but on all active leaders in the game.

The point of this number is to determine a warmonger rating you inhabit, that, based on the pre-scripted personality profiles of the various AI (since warmongering is really only an AI concern, not an MP one) will affect AI behavior.

What do I mean by this, exactly?

Say you start a war with oh, let's say Victoria (who doesn't seem to have a warmonger bias in any direction specifically, like Gandhi) in the Ancient Era.

Because it's you starting a war in the ancient era, you get a +5 to your WM Score. As it's the Ancient Era, this score is presented at a simple 100% rate. It does not decrease with time, it is a simple score of 5 at this point.

Now, this war ends with you taking Birmingham, after which Victoria sues for peace. You are faced with a choice at this point, as she asks for Birmingham back at this point.

Clearly indicated during the negotiation is what this will do to your score. If you keep Birmingham, your score goes up by +1. If you give it back at the end of the war, you subtract 1 from your score (and if you had razed it, you would have gotten a +2). You keep Birmingham, so your WM score is now +6 total. If no one else has gone to war, you're now + 6 above everyone else.

But this doesn't matter too much what you pick though in the end. For on the next turn, Victoria declares a surprise war on Pedro and she's in the classical age. This gives her a +8 to her WM Score. This is greater than your WM Score, so, assuming she takes no cities before that war ends and no other wars occur for the whole game, she will never call you a warmonger.

That's what I mean by having these numbers attached to the leaders themselves, ideally in an easily viewable manner on the main UI (under the leader portraits most likely). This way the player can gauge how much of a warmonger they might be considered by the AI at any given moment. More importantly, that it's related to the particular histories of all the players in a game in a way that means they're judging not just based off of player actions, but judging them relative to their own histories of war.

Now, to add some more complication are multipliers, and minimum acceptable limits before a leader might begin to consider any other player (human or AI) a warmonger.

Rather than tie these to eras, as I believe they are currently, these should be tied to governments adopted by the civs more specifically. Some governments are more accepting of warmongering, others aren't. More importantly, the multiplier doesn't take effect until the war is declared while a player is within a government.

So, to attach some numbers to this proposal, here are some base values for your WM Score:

  • Declare War (Basic): +5

  • Declare War (Surprise): +8

  • Declare War (Casus Belli, Minor) + 3

  • Declare War (Casus Belli, Moderate) +2

  • Declare War (Casus Belli, Major) +1

  • Declare War (Casus Belli, Perfect) +0

  • Raze a City: +2

  • Capture a City: +1

  • Return a City: -1

  • Liberate a City: -2

  • Taking a Capital City: +5

  • Using a Nuclear/Thermonuclear weapon: +5

  • Modifier for Chiefdom: x1, Minimum score of opponent to declare warmongering under Chiefdom, N/A

  • Modifier for Tier 2 Governments: x1.2

  • Minimum Score to declare Warmonger for Classical Republic: +8

  • Minimum Score to declare Warmonger for Oligarchy: +10

  • Minimum Score to declare Warmonger for Autocracy: +12

  • Modifier for Tier 3 Governments: x1.6

  • Min Score for Monarchy: +13

  • Min Score for Theocracy: +10

  • Min Score for Merchant Republic: +7

  • Modifier for Tier 4 Governments: x2

  • Min Score for Democracy: +5

  • Min Score for Communism: +10

  • Min Score for Fascism: +15

  • Bonus Modifier for having a matching Government for Tolerance (any level or age past Chiefdom): +3

For an example of a late game judgment, say both you and Victoria and Phillip are now in the Modern Era. Your score at this point is now 23, Victoria's is 18 and Phillip's is 12. Teddy's also in the game you discover, and he's been a bit of a Warmonger with a score of 24.

Phillip goes Communism and so do you. Victoria and Victoria go Democracy. Now, even though you're 11 points above Phillip's score, he doesn't consider you a warmonger because the range for Communism is +10, but you get a +3 to his range for having the same government. You'd have to have a 25 or above for him to consider you a warmonger. Even though Victoria's score is above his, and she's of a different government, he doesn't consider her a warmonger, but he does with Teddy because there's no modifier for Teddy and him.

However, Victoria DOES consider you a warmonger because her range is only having a +5 above her score for being in Democracy, and you fall just on the edge of that range. She doesn't think Teddy is though because of the matching government bonus.

Teddy doesn't think anyone is a warmonger, since he's above everyone else. You'd have to have a score of 29 if you were of a different government and a score of 32 if you also went Democracy.

So, in the end, the idea is that, no one is declaring warmongering too early, and the chances are certainly higher as you move up the Civics tree, much like how it currently is. But more importantly, that the history of the game you're in is factoring in a lot more.

So, for example, if you warmonger early, it might lead to you getting considered a warmonger early too. But it's likely that with this consideration in play, other civs will declare on you in response. Since they will do so, this will raise the other civs' warmongering scores too. Going forward, since they declared on you in response to your actions, they're less likely to declare on you further onto the game. Especially if they end up adopting governments that either match your own, or that are more warmonger tolerant than your score.

Now, I can already hear one rebuke:

"Isn't this basically what the game kind of does already?"

And the answer is that yes, this is very similar to the systems already in place on the diplomacy screen.

However, there are a couple of key differences.

The first is that the way civs react to your actions right now is very specifically done on a civ to civ level for most actions. Your history with each civ is judged on your actions with that civ in particular.

The one exception right now, is warmongering. Warmongering seems to be judged, in a manner that is rather opaque, on a different table. More importantly, I don't know where, without any mods or getting into the understanding of the mechanics discovered by modders and released on wikis), for any player to be able to get an accurate read on what this score is during normal play.

The first big difference here is that I'm arguing for more transparency, essentially. That we as players can see this rather important judgment on our actions somewhere in the game in a plain to see, and plain to understand manner. A simple, flat number. On every leader.

Currently, there are some rather annoying computations you have to do on average population size with cities versus a city you want to take to really figure out the modifier on your score too. I'm also advocating here for some smaller overall numbers with simpler modifiers that lead to easier to calculate scores for the player, just to make things easier to understand for more people.

The second thing is that, the only factors on warmongering the AI adds modifiers to their judgments on right now are for Agendas and Eras. While I think the Agendas are fine, and probably shouldn't be altered much, the era thing I find a bit strange. Mostly due to the potential for lag between tech and culture that can occur. Tying this to government tiers rather than pure era seems to make a lot more sense to me at least. Both thematically and as a manner tied to obvious changes in gameplay This way, a civ blazing ahead in tech but that doesn't necessarily have a huge cultural or government advantage might not presume later era modifiers that don't make sense really (btw, this is considered I think, to be one of the major factors behind the aggression of Imperial Japan in the early 20th century as just one example; that even though the Meiji Restoration brought the nation up to speed on physical technology, they were largely operating on an older mindset of what was acceptable for war and international aggression, a very specifically 18th-19th century mindset).

Also, the big change here is the relative value based on personal history. It just doesn't make sense to me that a civ that can spend the early game warmongering like mad has any right to judge a civ that does a little bit of later game warmongering quite as much and as quickly as it does. Certainly, the government/era modifiers should go into play on this assessment, but if Gilgamesh is a huge jerk in the Ancient through Medieval Eras and starts 8 wars, then it should take some time for others to catch up to his prior warmongering before he starts wagging his finger at them. Even if there are larger modifiers as the game goes on, so it will take fewer wars for others to catch up, his prior history should keep war from affecting his diplomatic actions for some time.

On top of this, there may be other factors to add onto this, some of which are already in the game, like decay or perhaps era/government upgrade erasure of the score.

Personally, I don't think much should be done to decay the base score at regular intervals though, since the idea behind the score is to reflect a total history of your actions. Since the idea of judgment ranges would be related to the personal scores all players in a game have, this would modify diplomatic penalties in a way that reflects the history of the current game you're in, rather than potentially seemingly arbitrary numbers you're unaware of.

That said, there should certainly be maintained a difference between this base score and your personal diplomatic history with a civ. One of the good things the diplo in Civ 6 does do is that it doesn't factor in any warmongering you might have accumulated before a Civ becomes aware of your existence. That should be maintained, as should the direct personal diplomatic relationship you have with each civ. This idea is merely to present warmongering as judged through that larger, whole game judgement the AI already seems to be making in a more nuanced way that matches the history of the game.

Oh, and one last thing that this system might also do:

In multiplayer, if a player drops out and is taken over by AI, their history of prior war led by the previous human player is now something that the new AI taking over the slot is still considering in their own actions. This at least would keep the AI a little more sensible in MP games when it takes over, wheras currently the massive amount of warmongering that usually goes on there makes it consider everyone a bunch of raging barbarians, even if the player that was just using them was waging war all over the place just a turn ago.

Anyway, that's my thought. What do you all think?

submitted by /u/SeveredHeadofOrpheus
[link] [comments]

Playing Civ Vi on a Mac but latest DLC not installable

Posted: 17 Dec 2017 11:16 AM PST

I play Civ VI on a mac and I have the digital delux edition, so every DLC should be playable for me. The latest DLC was released in october of 2017 being Khmer and Indonesia. Today is the 17th of december and I still cant play that DLC although it says that the DLC is in my library. What is wrong? havent they still not released the fall update for mac yet? its more than 8 weeks now. Why cant i play it? Thanks for your help!!

submitted by /u/Eddie160771
[link] [comments]

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Games26 © 2015. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By Blogger
Powered by Blogger.