Unlabelled Civilization - Ranger: So how do you know about satellites? Tribe: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

12/09/2017 10:58:00 am
A+ A- Print Email

Civilization - Ranger: So how do you know about satellites? Tribe: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ranger: So how do you know about satellites? Tribe: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 06:31 AM PST

Civilization VI: Rise and Fall - Kilwa Kisiwani (Wonder Movies)

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 09:57 AM PST

Am I the only one that still hates the mini map?

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 11:58 AM PST

I hate everything about it. From the ugly square city markers to the borders covering the water titles. Am I the only one?

submitted by /u/atlas1020
[link] [comments]

"Carthago delenda est..."

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 03:35 PM PST

I've heard of Long Island but this is ridiculous

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 01:25 PM PST

Very thematic start for England, don't you think?

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 12:59 PM PST

TIL Geoff Knorr is only 32 years old.

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 09:35 AM PST

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Knorr

Which means he was, like, 24 when he composed the Civ V soundtrack.

What the fuck am I doing with my life?

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

Something seems a bit... off about this spawn

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 03:48 PM PST

Anti-cavalry need a buff VS. cavalry

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 03:24 PM PST

I feel that anti cavalry units are too weak right now. A cavalry unit 1 tier higher can completely ignore an anti cavalry units bonus.

I'd like to see the passive bonus against cavalry increased by 5 to help with this issue

submitted by /u/Finances1212
[link] [comments]

The irony is strong in this one...

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 06:10 PM PST

Kilwa Kisiwani - New Wonder Movie

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 09:57 AM PST

Stopping runaways and maintaining a balance of power in Civ 6 Rise and Fall

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 07:55 AM PST

One of my favourite features of the upcoming expansion is an emphasis upon cutting back runaway civs. There's three important measures in particular:

  • Dark Ages (suffer weakness for an era for a better shot at a stronger following era)

  • City Flipping (a way to take cities off neighbours without declaring war on them)

  • Emergencies (if a civ is getting too strong, civs are encouraged to react to it)

Thus far, we know relatively little of how these mechanics work, but it's worth discussing how things might play out, and what we might like to see out of those systems.

Dark Ages

We know Dark Ages are an optional mechanic, and set back the loyalty rating in your cities along with possibly some other penalties, but grant the possibility of an extra-strong Heroic Age beyond it.

Here are what I think are some advantages of this:

  • Civs that undertake a Dark Age won't have a simple direct rise in relative power - they'll be leaving themselves vulnerable for a time.

  • It adds an extra challenge to go through for civs that might have downtime between peaks of power (America is a good example as they're good at early-rushing and late-game culture, but have little in between)

  • Additional internal management makes the game more interesting for players who like to avoid war.

And some concerns:

  • If the penalties aren't harsh enough, early-game civs will still have immense advantages. Conquer your way to a huge empire, ride out the penalties and end up with a humongous lead. Of course, Heroic Age bonuses will need to be worth it to prevent people simply avoiding Dark Ages altogether.

  • The "game era" system used to mark the start of Golden, Dark and Heroic Ages seems to be tied to a strict number of turns, and doesn't seem to take into account technological or civic advancement (though it could offer penalties to excessive beelining ahead of the current game era in order to prevent there being civs that are too ahead of the curve - we simply don't know yet). If the game era has no bearing on the individual civ's era, you'll end up with weird situations like a medieval-era Golden Age with Steamships and Cavalry.

City Flipping

City-flipping is back, this time requiring a little bit of warfare against the disloyal city. Edit: That might not be necessary - flipping may be possible via loyalty pressure. Assuming amenities play a part, this could be a way to somewhat weaken the immense power of warmongers. Golden Ages boost loyalty, making it harder for other civs to flip your cities and easier for you to flip theirs, while Dark Ages lower your cities' loyalty.

Here are some advantages of this system:

  • It may be a method to punish excessive aggressive expansion

  • Tying it in with the Governor system gives you some control over which cities to protect from flipping

And some concerns:

  • Warmongers that lose a city by this mechanic will probably be easily able to grab it again unless there's some kind of truce between them and the free city.

  • If the mechanic is too easy to avoid, warmongers will still dominate the game.

  • Alternatively, if the mechanic is too strong without decent ways of mitigating it, it undermines the effort put into expansion. Trade-offs might be a good idea, like policy cards that boost your cities' loyalty at the cost of not having a different, more directly useful policy card.

Emergencies

The most important of the three mechanics in my view, though again, we don't know the full details. Essentially, if a civ gets a significant lead, other civs can try and band together against them. Whichever side wins gets some kind of benefit which may be permanent.

Here's what I think is good about the system from what we know:

  • It's a mechanic that specifically attempts to rein in runaway civs that functions the same way in singleplayer and multiplayer. This should not only bring a little bit more consistency between diplomacy in both, but also make the game more interesting for times where one civ (which might even be you) is dominant.

  • Permanent benefits for being successful in the Emergency system should be useful as a catch-up mechanic.

  • It could be a really great indirect balancing tool - civs that are too strong due to balancing issues are more likely to be on the receiving end of a coalition formed from the Emergency mechanic.

  • Different Emergencies have different objectives, so it won't simply be a case of "go to war with this advanced militaristic behemoth" every time.

And here are some concerns:

  • If the AI are too loyal to their allies, then runaways in singleplayer that are lucky enough to have lots of friends will never have a problem.

  • However, if AI civs aren't loyal enough, strong players will be pretty much shut out of diplomacy as AI civs will betray them at the drop of a hat.

Of course, there's a lot we don't know, and the possible concerns may already be addressed. Still, speculation can lead to good ideas for the future of the game, so I'd like to know what people think about balance-of-power mechanics in Rise and Fall.

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

Proposal to make getting eurekas/inspirations less obligatory

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 04:15 PM PST

To preface, I only have experience with singleplayer in Civ 6. So I'm not sure how this would affect multiplayer

If you're like me, 90% of the time you pick which civic or tech to research based on what is boosted and when you plan to boost what. You find yourself thinking, "Building an extra galley isn't something I was planning on doing, but it saves me several hundred science points," or, "I wasn't going to improve that copper yet, but I need the boost so I'll go without the amenity from the marble."

Not getting a boost feels like a penalty, rather than getting one being a bonus. Your entire civilisation is dedicated to boosting civics and techs, and every decision you make reflects that. This feels too metagamey but it's so optimal it's hard not to do it. This also tends to lead to one or both trees being completed around turn 250 at standard speed. Some mods lower the boost to 30% or so, which is an improvement, but I think we can do better. I have a simple solution that isn't yet a mod or anything as far as I can google.

.

Multiple smaller boosts for each tech/civic, that stack

So each tech/civic has 3 separate smaller boosts each worth 10 or 20% instead of one monolithic boost worth 50%. China would still get slightly more. These boosts could range from simple ones you're almost certain to get, (looking at you Early Empire) to more obscure or specialised things like building two forts in your territory. They could even have different values for each miniboost. Possibly with more difficult tasks giving larger boosts. This could also mitigate the risk of getting a boost from a goody hut that you would have gotten anyway. The could even provide a generic boost that doesn't overlap any of the existing ones, as long as it was small.

.

Examples:

Irrigation

  • Farm a resource. 10%
  • Own two cities with access to fresh water. 15%
  • Found a city on or adjacent to a floodplain. 25%

Early Empire

  • Reach an empire total of 6 population. 10%
  • Own territory bordering another major civilisation or city state. 20%
  • Train 2 settlers. 20%

Horseback Riding

  • Build a pasture. 10%
  • Train a Heavy Chariot. 15%
  • Locate two sources of horses. 25%

Political Philosophy

  • Meet 3 City States. 15%
  • Earn 2 envoys from City State quests. 20%
  • Pay gold to change policies. 15%

.

Boosts were a great idea for a mechanic, but in practice they seem too good to pass up most of the time. There are also instances when a vital boost is impossible to attain due to circumstance. I think more varied goals and smaller multiple boosts would prevent the boosts from dictating what to research and where to settle, while still being good enough that they're worth going for if it's a reasonable task, as well as mitigate RNG related problems. I'm sure we've all been frustrated when we just can't seem to find 3 city states, because it leaves you so far behind.

The biggest hurdle to actually implementing something like this would be the UI. Coming up with three boosts for each civic/tech would take some work, but it can be done.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to have this idea, but I think it's worth sharing in hopes that the right minds get a hold of it.

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

The Inca Dream II: Electric saltaloo

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 02:48 PM PST

Forts Good in Civ 6 Multiplayer?

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 05:40 PM PST

How useful are they? Do they provide a buff to all units? How useful are melee units in them? Does it work for the enemy if they sit in it? Are they worth building if your civ is under siege? Do they get any terrain buffs? What does it mean by +2 turns of fortification?

Just hardly see any conversation about them beyond civ 5.

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

My Sweden Marathon is halted because the game wants me to choose production for a city I don't have.

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 03:24 PM PST

Is it safe to raze cities yet?

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 10:48 AM PST

Or will the AI still hate me for all eternity if I raze a city-state in the Classical Era?

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

AI Attitude Toward Open Borders

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 04:08 PM PST

I hope in the future they change it so that the AI doesn't ask you to withdraw troops from their border when you have an open borders agreement. The entire point of the agreement is to move units through another civ's territory. Such messages are often triggered by even just a couple scouts.

submitted by /u/Anurse1701
[link] [comments]

Districts in Civ 6 are so disappointing to me

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 04:38 PM PST

The whole point of districts is to make city building a more dynamic experience but the way districts are is just so boring. No options for the buildings you build in districts it's the exact same problem that was present in Civ 5. One immediate improvement would be to put wonders in districts. It just makes more sense to me why build your commercial hub next to a river on flat ground so you can build big Ben next to it??? Some could still be their own tiles but others really should not.

Another thing that needs to be fixed is housing. There needs to be more variety in creating housing options, basing neighborhood capacity solely by tile appeal is really dumb. The system could be way more in depth with different districts able to build different types of housing (neighbood, apartment complex, high rise) making housing just a more realistic experience.

You should also be able to expand your city center. And build things like universities in cities and water Mills and dams in industrial zones. The number of choices you make when choosing building options is limited to barracks vs stables and art museum vs archeological museum.

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

Celebrating Dutch Diversity!

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 07:42 AM PST

I calculated the size of a Civ 5 tile

Posted: 07 Dec 2017 08:15 PM PST

I'm so angry right now

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 04:24 PM PST

40+ Ecstatic Cities!

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 06:38 AM PST

I don't read good and didn't realize the DLC isn't playable until 2018 before purchasing it. Suggestions to bide the time?

Posted: 08 Dec 2017 07:14 AM PST

Usually play single player on tiny maps (sometimes with +/- an AI or City State for a little change) due to a mediocre laptop that gets very unhappy with anything larger by mid-game. Strategic mode always, no animations, basically all graphics kept to a minimum so that turns don't take an hour each.

Looking for mods particularly suited to tiny map improvement. Sitting on a stock version of 6 with the deluxe package thing so all additional content, civs, etc. are there. Since my games are usually very small scale there are lots of examples of things that would be great.... if I was playing a larger map. Most aspects are balanced very well but I'm hoping the community has some thoughts to mix things up for ~2 months until the DLC arrives.

submitted by /u/dustybuffalo
[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.