The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Rushy on September 02, 2014, 02:58:31 AM
-
I wish I could play Civ 5 like Russia plays the world. In the game, you can't actually attack another civilization without declaring war. I don't see why I can't send units into my enemies cities and then tell the AI "they're not mine, never seen them before, no idea what you're talking about, DON'T MAKE ME NUKE YOU!"
-
I wish I could play Civ 5 like Russia plays the world. In the game, you can't actually attack another civilization without declaring war. I don't see why I can't send units into my enemies cities and then tell the AI "they're not mine, never seen them before, no idea what you're talking about, DON'T MAKE ME NUKE YOU!"
Play Europa Universalis IV. Still not quite Russia, but you can pay rebels who then liberate their nation, are immediately friends with you, and are usually very easy to diplomatically vassalise and annex :^)
-
I wish I could play Civ 5 like Russia plays the world. In the game, you can't actually attack another civilization without declaring war. I don't see why I can't send units into my enemies cities and then tell the AI "they're not mine, never seen them before, no idea what you're talking about, DON'T MAKE ME NUKE YOU!"
In earlier Civs you could 'culture bomb' countries or flood them with propaganda until the rebels won the city for you. Also, privateers.
-
In earlier Civs you could 'culture bomb' countries or flood them with propaganda until the rebels won the city for you. Also, privateers.
It annoyed me when they removed Privateers in Civ 5. It was pretty nice to have a neutral enemy that you could harass cities with.
-
In earlier Civs you could 'culture bomb' countries or flood them with propaganda until the rebels won the city for you. Also, privateers.
It annoyed me when they removed Privateers in Civ 5. It was pretty nice to have a neutral enemy that you could harass cities with.
During the age of sail, my civ would always be a mighty pirate kingdom.
-
I don't remember making this thread, but since its here, might as well complain a bit about Civilization.
The AI is utter shit. It asks itself one question "Do I think I can kill X civilization?" and if the answer is "yes" it declares war on you. How friendly you were to the AI in the past has no real impact on whether or not it will declare war on you. (e.g. a civilization which you have many, many positive relationship points will still declare war on you if it thinks your army is too small). Civilization is not Risk and it should not play out like that every fucking time.
-
I don't remember making this thread, but since its here, might as well complain a bit about Civilization.
I split it off from another thread, which was about "World War III".
The AI is utter shit.
I agree.
It asks itself one question "Do I think I can kill X civilization?" and if the answer is "yes" it declares war on you. How friendly you were to the AI in the past has no real impact on whether or not it will declare war on you.
Actually, that's not entirely true. When the AI isn't lying to you, the points do matter and you can build a lasting relationship with an ally. The problem is that the AI has a "deception" mode, under which it pretends to be friendly with you and deliberately shows you misinformation about you having no negative points with it. It does it really fucking often, too. As a rule of thumb, if a stronger civ suddenly becomes friendly with you, it's more alarming than if they were openly hostile.
Also, Parsifal and I play Civ V (with G&K and BNW) together fairly often whenever we get round to it. If anyone would like to join us for a game or two, PM me and/or Parsifal so we can become bros on Steam.
-
Wouldn't a multiplayer game of Civ take literal months to complete? The game is slow enough when each AI player makes their decisions within a few seconds of hitting the "next turn" button.
Actually, that's not entirely true. When the AI isn't lying to you, the points do matter and you can build a lasting relationship with an ally. The problem is that the AI has a "deception" mode, under which it pretends to be friendly with you and deliberately shows you misinformation about you having no negative points with it. It does it really fucking often, too. As a rule of thumb, if a stronger civ suddenly becomes friendly with you, it's more alarming than if they were openly hostile.
This is pretty obnoxious considering all of the AIs (four) in my Civ game were each doing this and each declared war on me at the same time. I've been a peaceful civ the entire game (except when Washington declared war on me I took half his cities to teach him a lesson). The AIs always want to do everything the hard way.
-
Wouldn't a multiplayer game of Civ take literal months to complete? The game is slow enough when each AI player makes their decisions within a few seconds of hitting the "next turn" button.
Hybrid turns help. When not at war, human players do their turns simultaneously. This has the downside that you might occasionally find yourself beating another player to a ruin or something like that, but for the most part it's benign. You still get to do your turns sequentially in case of war, which does take time.
All in all, it doesn't take months. Sure, it takes longer than it otherwise would, but it's not really that bad. Also, you can enable turn timers, which are immensely useful when more than 2 players are involved.
This is pretty obnoxious considering all of the AIs (four) in my Civ game were each doing this and each declared war on me at the same time. I've been a peaceful civ the entire game (except when Washington declared war on me I took half his cities to teach him a lesson). The AIs always want to do everything the hard way.
I guess, but imagine how anti-climactic it would be if they just played the game normally. The entire game could be completely peaceful, you'd think you're doing all right, and suddenly, bam, fucking Nebuchadnezzar is building spaceship parts and you can do nothing to stop him in time.
-
(http://oi41.tinypic.com/2z4fxvs.jpg)
-
This is pretty obnoxious considering all of the AIs (four) in my Civ game were each doing this and each declared war on me at the same time. I've been a peaceful civ the entire game (except when Washington declared war on me I took half his cities to teach him a lesson). The AIs always want to do everything the hard way.
I guess, but imagine how anti-climactic it would be if they just played the game normally. The entire game could be completely peaceful, you'd think you're doing all right, and suddenly, bam, fucking Nebuchadnezzar is building spaceship parts and you can do nothing to stop him in time.
Speaking of which, I managed a spaceship victory despite every civ trying to destroy me. Making even funnier is that Sweden was going to win a Diplomatic victory on the very same turn, but it let me add the spaceship part to my rocket before Sweden was allowed to have the UN vote. (Sweden was allies with every city state in the game, giving it 16 votes only needing 10 to win)
-
I don't remember making this thread, but since its here, might as well complain a bit about Civilization.
The AI is utter shit. It asks itself one question "Do I think I can kill X civilization?" and if the answer is "yes" it declares war on you. How friendly you were to the AI in the past has no real impact on whether or not it will declare war on you. (e.g. a civilization which you have many, many positive relationship points will still declare war on you if it thinks your army is too small). Civilization is not Risk and it should not play out like that every fucking time.
I love how civilisations can turn into complete psychopaths on the drop of a hat, even when they're wildly outgunned. In one game I owned about 60% of the world, was armed to the teeth with about 10x the number of modern armours and mech infantries and yet the Aztecs decided to try to extort silk or some other worthless luxury from me. Naturally I said no and they decided to go full berserker and razed two or three of my cities before I could mobilise my enormous armies (credit where credit's due, they managed to boat an army onto one of my 'safe' continents and razed a poorly-defended city in the middle of the land.)
needless to say they were squashed like bugs
-
The Zulu have always been crazy. Did they at least go after one of your cities that had silk?
-
Relevant:
Another terrible free game for gold. Some Civilization title.
And it is indeed terrible. It looks like the game was made for five-year-olds.
-
Civilization is a complex game that is so deep and intuitive it befuddled Saddam's uninitiated mind.
-
On the contrary, it was a very dull and straightforward game, with barely any options beyond the typical "move your units towards the enemy and attack" being available. I should probably clarify that the game in question was Civilization Revolution, a console exclusive with all the dumbing-down that a console installment of a franchise implies. And the kiddy, cartoony graphics and animations were really annoying.
-
You could boil down any strategy game to "move your units towards the enemy and attack." This includes the most popular strategy game in the world, Chess, and the most popular RTS video game, Starcraft. If you're implying there is no further thinking required then you're dumb.
-
Civilization is a complex game that is so deep and intuitive it befuddled Saddam's uninitiated mind.
No. There are some deep rooted flaws associated with the Civilization series.
-
No. There are some deep rooted flaws associated with the Civilization series.
If you're referring to game balance it is like that on purpose. (e.g. if you don't have uranium/aluminum in the late game you are fucked).
-
Isn't starcraft just won buy whoever clicks the fastest?
Don't they measure star craft skill in clicks?
-
Well the AI is dumb as bricks, the combat sucks, and it takes forever to play a fucking match. Is it supposed to be fun? Because I'm not having any.
Isn't starcraft just won buy whoever clicks the fastest?
Don't they measure star craft skill in clicks?
Yes, and click location. No skill at all.
Most PC games come down to this and that's why they're all pretty much terrible.
-
Starcraft is won by whoever uses the dirtiest tactics the fastest. This is why I never play online, because people only care about winning, and not about actually playing a fun game. It's all about winning as quickly as possible.
-
Well the AI is dumb as bricks, the combat sucks, and it takes forever to play a fucking match. Is it supposed to be fun? Because I'm not having any.
Isn't starcraft just won buy whoever clicks the fastest?
Don't they measure star craft skill in clicks?
Yes, and click location. No skill at all.
Most PC games come down to this and that's why they're all pretty much terrible.
Not Minecraft building games.
-
Well the AI is dumb as bricks, the combat sucks, and it takes forever to play a fucking match. Is it supposed to be fun? Because I'm not having any.
Isn't starcraft just won buy whoever clicks the fastest?
Don't they measure star craft skill in clicks?
Yes, and click location. No skill at all.
Most PC games come down to this and that's why they're all pretty much terrible.
Not Minecraft building games.
Only if you're playing the console version. If you're using mouse click controls then it's a terrible game. No exceptions besides DOOM 2.
-
Barely any PC games come down to 'who can click the fastest'.
-
You could boil down any strategy game to "move your units towards the enemy and attack." This includes the most popular strategy game in the world, Chess, and the most popular RTS video game, Starcraft. If you're implying there is no further thinking required then you're dumb.
There was no further thinking required in the specific game I played. Like I said, it was dumbed-down. A PC elitist like yourself should be diving on this as yet another example of PC gaming's inherent superiority over console gaming.
-
There was no further thinking required in the specific game I played. Like I said, it was dumbed-down. A PC elitist like yourself should be diving on this as yet another example of PC gaming's inherent superiority over console gaming.
Stop agreeing with me dammit.
Barely any PC games come down to 'who can click the fastest'.
They're just doing some kind of pedant trolling "hurr durr you have to use a mouse for most pc games, therefore you just click your way to victory!"
-
Barely any PC games come down to 'who can click the fastest'.
not cookie clicker starcraft
-
Console games are about button-pressing and control stick-wiggling your way to victory.
-
Not trolling, starcraft is decided by which Korean can click fastest.
-
Well the AI is dumb as bricks
Play on a higher difficulty. Most of the complaints here become invalid once you reach Emperor. The problem with that is that it requires you to actually be decent at the game.
the combat sucks
Eh.
and it takes forever to play a fucking match
Right. Well, if you don't enjoy a game you can get invested in, you won't enjoy Civ. Fair enough. Some people like long books that take weeks or months to churn through, others prefer short pieces of writing (and others, like myself, simply don't enjoy reading). That's not a "deep rooted flaw", it's your preference.
Is it supposed to be fun? Because I'm not having any.
Why not play a match or two with us? Shit's pretty hilarious. When we played with beardo we just kept making fun of how retarded he was (e.g. when he accidentally declared war on Parsifal, somehow). It was just like FES all over again.
-
Well the AI is dumb as bricks
Play on a higher difficulty. Most of the complaints here become invalid once you reach Emperor.
I always used to play on emperor. :-D
I used to win about 30% of the time so I knew I'd always have a good game, but it'd be very rewarding when I did win.
If I was playing epic, I'd put it up to Immortal because suddenly war becomes very profitable.
This was always the thing that annoyed me about Civ. You don't want to be in a long war ... ever. You come out of it as dumb as a hammer. But a fast war lets you get more land without haemorrhaging cash for hundreds of years.
If you play quick, wow. Warfare is a twat. And on Epic its the only thing you should be planning. And its just because you can always move one square per turn. On epic, you get 8 moves in the same time frame as one on quick. So instead of it taking 40 years to march to the nearest city (I mean really, that's a fucking long walk), instead you'd do it in 5. Take the city, move on.
I never really found a way to balance game speed. I actually preferred quick as you could have a whole game in an evening, but a single AI declaring war when you aren't ready to blitzkrieg the shit out of them will often mean you aint going to win no space race and your horseys are gonna get pooned by some tanks.
-
I generally play on normal (or standard or whatever it is they call it). Not for any particular strategic reason, but just because that's the pace that feels "right" to me. It's long enough that I can really get a good feel of my civilisation and the region I'm in and form a long-term strategy, but short enough for me not to get bored. With that speed, I find that war can be very profitable even if it's long, but only if you make sure it's not your sole focus.
Make sure you're defensive enough that you can hold out if things take a turn for the worse, advance slowly and steadily taking care not to make any losses, occasionally build up units, but generally try to carry on playing as usual and developing in other areas. It won't always work, but that's why you've got good defences to begin with. If it ends up not working, you can just outlast the enemy and peace out when they get tired. Usually, you'll find yourself winning anyway.
-
I'm with Thork on this one. Unless I play on Epic or Marathon, war is a frustrating money sink (maybe that's how it should be?).
The key is an obnoxious amount of long range units (especially artillery, after dynamite is researched). If you position them on hills, they can decimate the enemy before they get too close (unless you're fighting Japan, that annoying 100% strength even if unit is damaged means you'll end up losing the artillery to them if they get close). After that, you move in on the cities and besiege them in a war of attrition. Once or two melee units is all that's needed to move in and take the city. Easiest way to quickly take cities while simultaneously minimizing losses.
-
This just in:
(http://i.imgur.com/tIFirCy.png)
Shit was kinda brutal. Ended up in a space race with 2 other nations. Nuked their shit because that's how I roll :^)
-
I love winning a cultural victory. I would tech like crazy to Democracy, turn off the science and get people making art. You can wrap up a culture victory by 1600ish. I've never been able to space race faster than about the 1850s.
-
Warmongering is bad.
-
Domination victories are the only real way to win. The other victory types are at worst, nonsensical, and at best, cheap. For example, the diplomatic victory is the single most nonsensical victory option there is. So you paid off a bunch of city states to vote for you in the UN, so what? Who gives a shit? I doubt if the UN voted Sweden "emperor of earth" that any major world superpower would care, especially if those given powers were already at war with you.
Cultural victories too. You made a bunch of cultural changes, even if they were the most deep, intuitive, philosophical changes the world has ever seen, most countries would give zero fucks and they're certainly not going to stop murdering you for being just so cultured.
Space race makes sort of sense if the mission was, I don't know, space. If you were the first country to space, it would make sense. You're in space now and can launch orbital nukes. That's some scary shit. But no, all other countries have already been to space, and the space race is supposedly a mission to Alpha Centauri. So? Are we supposed to care you managed to send maybe a hundred people to another star? (no telling how big that rocket is, Civ's scaling has always been shit. The tanks are bigger than skyscrapers). No country is going to stop murdering you because you built big fancy rockets.
Domination only. If you get locked into a forever war, you all lose.
-
The game isn't called 'country' it's called 'Civilisation'
If you launch the spaceship first your civ becomes the first culture to become interplanetary, the genesis of a space-bound empire, every mission which follows will, in some respects, mirror your own. You set the pace.
In a cultural victory, it doesn't matter if your country is wiped from the planet, your culture has permeated or supplanted everyone else's, in some respects your civilisation will win even if the originator is gone.
The diplomatic victory has always suggested to me that the Earth has united under a one-world-government of some kind and your civilisation has produced its first leader, the one to unite the peoples of Earth. That's a victory.
-
Domination victories are the only real way to win. The other victory types are at worst, nonsensical, and at best, cheap. For example, the diplomatic victory is the single most nonsensical victory option there is. So you paid off a bunch of city states to vote for you in the UN, so what? Who gives a shit? I doubt if the UN voted Sweden "emperor of earth" that any major world superpower would care, especially if those given powers were already at war with you.
Cultural victories too. You made a bunch of cultural changes, even if they were the most deep, intuitive, philosophical changes the world has ever seen, most countries would give zero fucks and they're certainly not going to stop murdering you for being just so cultured.
Space race makes sort of sense if the mission was, I don't know, space. If you were the first country to space, it would make sense. You're in space now and can launch orbital nukes. That's some scary shit. But no, all other countries have already been to space, and the space race is supposedly a mission to Alpha Centauri. So? Are we supposed to care you managed to send maybe a hundred people to another star? (no telling how big that rocket is, Civ's scaling has always been shit. The tanks are bigger than skyscrapers). No country is going to stop murdering you because you built big fancy rockets.
Domination only. If you get locked into a forever war, you all lose.
I like to play on the huge maps with 14 civs. Its not possible to get a domination on emperor with a map that size. At least I don't think it is. I've never even managed it on Prince. Just way too many cities to cover. (I only play civ IV - not sure about this on civ 5)
-
The game isn't called 'country' it's called 'Civilisation'
Irrelevant. Each entity behaves exactly the same way a country would (at least human players do, for the most part, the AI is not a good example).
If you launch the spaceship first your civ becomes the first culture to become interplanetary, the genesis of a space-bound empire, every mission which follows will, in some respects, mirror your own. You set the pace.
This doesn't stop your country, yes country, from being annihilated.
In a cultural victory, it doesn't matter if your country is wiped from the planet, your culture has permeated or supplanted everyone else's, in some respects your civilisation will win even if the originator is gone.
So, in reality the Romans and Greeks are still winning?
The diplomatic victory has always suggested to me that the Earth has united under a one-world-government of some kind and your civilisation has produced its first leader, the one to unite the peoples of Earth. That's a victory.
Except in a diplomatic victory you earn those votes by literally paying off or rigging the elections of city-states. That's not a victory and is absolute nonsense.
-
I always liked the option of having an economic victory in Alpha Centauri.
-
Irrelevant. Each entity behaves exactly the same way a country would (at least human players do, for the most part, the AI is not a good example).
That human players like yourself don't understand the basic premise of the game really isn't my problem.
This doesn't stop your country, yes country, from being annihilated.
Irrelevant. You don't run a country.
So, in reality the Romans and Greeks are still winning?
I'd say it's probably the Americans - culturally.
Except in a diplomatic victory you earn those votes by literally paying off or rigging the elections of city-states. That's not a victory and is absolute nonsense.
You can in Civ V, less in the others.
-
nig like ya'll playin. if ya'll manage to make yo virtues n culture n traditions a common o-curr-ance in othr civs, n so many dat its ALL de othr civs, ya'll you hav won, dawg. thy just u with an angrier face dawg. blue jeans, dawg, blue jeans.
-
That human players like yourself don't understand the basic premise of the game really isn't my problem.
Is this the part where you act like you're smarter but don't actually explain why? Sorry, only I can use that strategy.
Also, the premise of the game is to win. It just so happens the majority of the winning strategies don't make any real sense.
Irrelevant. You don't run a country.
Yes, you do.
I'd say it's probably the Americans - culturally.
So then killing a country means its accomplishments don't matter, glad we could get that sorted out.
-
My Civ is broken and it made me cry, I thought I had got over it but this thread brought back all the nasty memories.
Thanks Flat Earth
-
I'm installing Civ: Beyond Earth right now. I'll give you guys my impressions at a later date.
EDIT: My first impression is that the initial conditions are quite variable, but the game itself seems simpler than previous versions. Definitely not a worthy successor to Alpha Centauri, but it's still quite fun.
-
I watched some videos of it on youtube to see how excited I was. I couldn't give a shit. I just couldn't. Without the suspension of reality that its my little kingdom and I'm running it, its a bit dull. Aliens, technologies I have never heard of ... I find it a bit hard to care.
-
Why is playing as an immortal god-king running a static, monolithic kingdom on a fictional planet with spacemen rubbing shoulders with ye olde knights any less believable than the same thing on an alien planet? Alpha Centauri arguably competes for the best of the Civilisation titles.
I suspect there's something else putting you off than its sci-fi flavouring.
-
Why is playing as an immortal god-king running a static, monolithic kingdom on a fictional planet with spacemen rubbing shoulders with ye olde knights any less believable than the same thing on an alien planet?
I'd say that Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth are much more believable than any other Civ game. All of the "historical" elements are just silly.
-
Why is playing as an immortal god-king running a static, monolithic kingdom on a fictional planet with spacemen rubbing shoulders with ye olde knights any less believable than the same thing on an alien planet? Alpha Centauri arguably competes for the best of the Civilisation titles.
I suspect there's something else putting you off than its sci-fi flavouring.
I don't know. It just didn't capture my imagination. With regular Civ I guess when you start playing you want to see what all the wonders are, the units, the leaders, etc etc. You won't get that with the sci-fi ones. The units, leaders, etc aren't based on anything real at all. So I think I'm not interested in the learning aspect because I don't find it particularly engaging. And If I can't be bothered to learn it, I'm never going to be good at it and I'm not going to keep coming back.
-
I like the technology web. I hope they carry that forward to future Civ games.
-
By the way, in a recent AMA some Beyond Earth devs said their favorite modern 4x series besides their own was the Endless series.
-
Why is playing as an immortal god-king running a static, monolithic kingdom on a fictional planet with spacemen rubbing shoulders with ye olde knights any less believable than the same thing on an alien planet? Alpha Centauri arguably competes for the best of the Civilisation titles.
I suspect there's something else putting you off than its sci-fi flavouring.
I don't know. It just didn't capture my imagination. With regular Civ I guess when you start playing you want to see what all the wonders are, the units, the leaders, etc etc. You won't get that with the sci-fi ones. The units, leaders, etc aren't based on anything real at all. So I think I'm not interested in the learning aspect because I don't find it particularly engaging. And If I can't be bothered to learn it, I'm never going to be good at it and I'm not going to keep coming back.
Each to their own. One of the things which drew me into AC was the videos explaining what all the new sick and twisted technology you were inventing did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EghMCc6ftoA
-
Yes, that was wonderful!
It doesn't happen in this game.