2020. 1. 24. 08:13ㆍ카테고리 없음
Click to expand.I think it is because much of Firaxis' focus lies in fast game speeds on smaller maps. When you play on giant maps with marathon setting (like I have always done), then the game rules start falling apart. I used to play civ games like a simulation where I decided how to play - but now it seems more like a rollercoaster game on tracks. Every game seems the same and you just go though the motions with a massive amount of pointless menu clicking. You'll be lucky if you ever see a level 4 unit.The AI doesn't seem to know how far away their enemy is. This might not be a problem on small maps, but on giant maps it is ridiculous.
They will sue for peace before they get any units close (if they even send any). Another reason why I doubt firaxis even test the game on larger maps.The game needs automation of cities, workers, trade routes and spies. I want a spy to remain on counterespionage until told otherwise - why do I have to order him around all the time? I want trade routes to remain on the current traderoute until told otherwise - why do I need to order them around all the time? I want the option to autoimprove tiles with a worker, because late game I just stop building workers otherwise. I want to automate a city's building when said city is a tiny useless outpost - that, or bring back production to gold/science like it was in civ5 (you dont have to continuously order the city to build this).I want automation in diplomacy too.
I want a checkbox on items that I wont be trading on any circumstance, and I dont want the AI to ask about it every 10 turns.In previous civ games, I could really feel a difference when I got factories - now your production just seem to be aligned with unit cost throughout the game. You will never be spitting out units faster. Unless you got a perfect city with massive production you could end up taking more time to build units late game than early game. Furthermore, moving large armies on a giant map with 1upt is a nightmare.It's a good game though. Just doesn't feel like a civ game to me.
Most certainly. They will build seaside resorts with cultural victory off. I routinely disable cultural victory because it comes too early in my games, and I don't want the game to end quite that early. I find myself aiming for cultural victory nearly every game to defend against the AI going for it. Once they start getting close to 25% or 33% tourists needed, I really ramp up my efforts. Seasides resorts do provide some gold for the tile even with cultural victory turn off, but that's almost never a decent tile improvement on its own. Click to expand.The Score criteria has this ambiguous 'Empire' factor which seems to be the largest contributor to overall score.
I can't find a further breakdown on what that entails though and I've never payed much attention to it before. It would be weird if score incorporated wonders, religion, great people, era points, technology and civics.but not tourism.
The galaxy of Endless Space 2 is presented as a set of nodes connected by starlanes. Each node corresponds to a point of interest (star system, asteroid field, etc.) which can also have additional traits (Strategic or Luxury Resources, Anomalies, Curiosities, etc.). Some nodes are not connected to.
I guessed Empire is an amalgam of all your yields like gold, tourism, production, population -evaluated by some formula to simplify into this 'Empire' factor, but I have to wonder now.Maybe I'll just test it myself then. There should be a notification when you have top secret status with people telling you when they switch victory aims.
That would be a one way to prove that they do not react to activated/deactivated victories. And I suppose a good way to measure any impact of tourism on 'Empire' would be to keep an eye on it and see if it drops as AIs hit enlightenment.If I figure any of it out I'll post, but I'm also rather lazy, lol.
Has anyone else (.cough. Victoria.cough.) tested for any of this before? Click to expand.Yes, this is from Beach.
He's on record in interviews from the time when Civ 6 was launched as indicating he didn't want any automated systems like 'auto explore' and I expect build queues fall into that category. His view was that all decisions should be interesting things the player wants to be engaged in and so there shouldn't be any 'set and forget' aspects to the game (my term, I can't remember his exact words). He also acknowledged that the team tried hard to get him to budge on this and eventually he relinquished on some topics.And, yeah, if you watched him on some of those early intro plays, you'll see that Beach loves his micromanagement and agonizing over immaterial decisions.
I think emergencies could be expanded upon in a very big way. And there wouldn't necessarily have to be a target civ. They could be rebranded as existential crises. Sure, the chances of most of them actually happening in real life is laughable, but we're looking to have fun and keep things interesting, right?The main idea of existential crises is that they affect everybody and, if you're unlucky, could seriously mess up your game (or a rival's if you're lucky). In an extreme implementation, they can result in the entire collapse of civilizations. Meaning that whoever can survive the best or be the last man (civ) standing wins.
In a softer implementation, they'd be something interesting to deal with that could slow your progress. Another challenge to overcome basically.As for specifics, climate change is the first to come to mind. Namely because it's one of two existential crises that could realistically mess up the planet. Anyways, it triggers when more than half the players are in the atomic era and xyz factories have been built.
Anyone who joins the emergency gets +science and -gold (which reverts to normal over time) and can run a special policy card (Environmentalist); anyone who doesn't join the emergency immediately enters a dark age, gains production, and gets a sizeable diplo penalty with those that did join the emergency. I'm pretty sure it's still impossible, but if it's not - bring back the Civ4 tile change due to climate change.
If it's possible, the more players that don't join to counteract climate change will increase the chance that a tile's features change to desert or tundra. This tile change needs to be common enough that it could possibly be something to worry about. If a tile changes in a civ that joined the crisis, all civs will blame those that didn't join the crisis. Also, small cities will start losing population to large cities and farms will become less productive over time. You can actually play 'the Great Mistake.' The other possible RL existential crisis already is in the game - nuclear weapons. However, large scale use of nukes doesn't do anything other than put fallout on tiles and make people hate you.
- Jan 9, 2018 - Endless Space 2 mod Released May 2017. Infinite improvement that reverses depletion effects of the cravers at a rate 10 points per turn (so.
- Endless Space (2) isn't quite so bad in the end game-but a game of Endless Space (2) is also much, much shorter than a game of Civ. Click to expand. I haven't actually completed a game of Endless Space 2 yet, despite being incredibly impressed by the gorgeous user interface.
In addition to those consequences - if too many nukes are used in a small period of time, tiles could start changing to tundra and ice representing a nuclear winter. If nukes keep getting used - it could get real bad really fast. This could further trigger a 'ban all nukes' emergency. If all players join, everyone's nukes are deleted, they can never build new ones, and all negative diplomatic penalties between all civs is reset (the post-atomic pax). If players don't join, all players that did join declare war on those that didn't.
To add some spice/balance - if one player joined AND had already completed the Manhattan Project, all other players that joined immediately complete the Manhattan project. Click to expand.Micromanagement is fine for single-player. But it is a nightmare for multiplayer.One of Civ V's strengths was that it was designed primarily for single player. (Remember it came out after the 'fiasco' that was Civ Rev, Firaxis' attempt at Civ for MP and portables. I recall a 2K or Firaxis exec.
In an interview saying Civ has single player 'in its DNA'. That was very insightful. It made Civ V the runaway success that it was).While in Civ VI they tried to make a game for both single player and for multiplayer.The maps and scenarios in particular are all designed for balance in contrast to those in Civ V: 4-Leaf Clover, 6-Armed Snowflake and every single scenario.
(In Civ V's scenarios like Into The Renaissance, the different religions played differently. In Scramble For Africa, the Euro civs played differently to the Sub-Saharans and them to the North Africans).Meanwhile the regular game is chock full of micro and grind. Yes, some people love that but it's antithesis for multi-player.FYI My clan DI have stopped playing Civ VI and many Civ gamers left. We've started playing BERT recently to tide us over but there isn't much point cos Civ VI MP seems a lost cause RN.
Yes, this is from Beach. He's on record in interviews from the time when Civ 6 was launched as indicating he didn't want any automated systems like 'auto explore' and I expect build queues fall into that category. His view was that all decisions should be interesting things the player wants to be engaged in and so there shouldn't be any 'set and forget' aspects to the game (my term, I can't remember his exact words). He also acknowledged that the team tried hard to get him to budge on this and eventually he relinquished on some topics.And, yeah, if you watched him on some of those early intro plays, you'll see that Beach loves his micromanagement and agonizing over immaterial decisions. Click to expand.Puppets too.
(I really miss these from Civ V and BERT). Perhaps allow cities with Governors to act like puppets? Automate production).Automation of workers, etc used to be optional so IDK how that could be a problem. However giving credit where credit is due, in Civ VI you don't have to manually create roads! (Thank you Ed)This is maybe the only way in which Civ VI betters Civ V in terms of micromanagement.If the AI built more air units and/or nukes the late game would definitely be more exciting. (I really miss these from Civ V and BERT).
Perhaps allow cities with Governors to act like puppets? Automate production).Automation of workers, etc used to be optional so IDK how that could be a problem. However giving credit where credit is due, in Civ VI you don't have to manually create roads!
(Thank you Ed)This is maybe the only way in which Civ VI betters Civ V in terms of micromanagement.If the AI built more air units and/or nukes the late game would definitely be more exciting. This is the one question that from the heady days of playing Civ 2 has always burned in the back of my mind. Each Civ title gradually improves the title - trying out new concepts, or ripping up previous ones for something better - but arguably Civ has never managed to conquer its inherent late game malaise, where interest wanes either through the boredom of managing a large empire, or the 'I've won already' feeling.I keep thinking that the most desired development for me as a consumer is a riveting late game, but it seems this hope is entirely misguided.
After all, we're now at Civ 6 and this still hasn't materialised. We did have the UN in Civ 2 and Corporations in Civ 4 and these made good inroads to improving the late game, however, somewhat surprisingly these concepts haven't been developed in subsequent versions of Civ and instead have been stripped out.The irony is the late game has so many cool options with advanced units and victory conditions to pursue, and yet the AI consistently fails to utilise any of these. We're now a year into Civ 6 and they still can't use or even build an airforce, can't deploy spec op parachutes, or for that matter successfully manage any of the late game units.Maybe Civ 7 should be labelled Civ 7: The late game, a whole title dedicated to delivering the late game experience we've all been diligently waiting for since Civ's inception? Click to expand.D'oh!Well, they say you can't please all of the people all of the time. LOLFrom a design point of view, choices should be made with a particular goal in mind. E.g: make a better multi-player game.
After the success of Civ V, it seemed like Firaxis decided to make a better MP game of Civ VI but this was only half-hearted. Cos many of the design decisions (re: micromanagement) are at the expense of the MP experience.At least for MP the late game isn't all that relevant, cos rarely ever do you make it into the atomic or information era.
I finally got around to starting a Craver campaign. Despite what others upthread found, they seem super strong to me.
The issues of depletion are easily solved by moving your Craver population (or most of it) on to ‘fresh’ planets, leaving behind captured non-Cravers and a token Craver to keep them enslaved for bonus resources.The early bonuses Cravers generate really snowball you - you get a huge boost to your initial infrastructure, and then you can start conquering enemy empires at a rapid pace. I actually think a lot of people online are seriously misunderstanding the Cravers and the depletion mechanic.
I too misunderstood how it works.Cravers get a bonus on undepleted planets. This is quite significant: +50% FIDSI flat out great, and this bonus is included in the (numerous) buildings that add a bonus per population.They do not get this bonus on undepleted planets. But that’s it - there’s no penalty. This means that Cravers function like a plague, devouring planets, and then moving on.
Since other races have their own bonuses, I bring in slaves I’ve captured in my wars and ship them back to my depleted core planets, where a small group of Cravers enslave them for even more bonus FIDSI. Meanwhile the Craver population are moved on to freshly conquered planets, where they start the process again.I see a lot of people asking ‘how do I get rid of Cravers? They are devouring my planets!’ as if this is some sort of problem!
FifthFret:Either way, there’s really no reason for a Craver pop to work on a depleted world.Doesn’t matter since all races get that penalty on a depleted planet. It’s the planet that is depleted. In fact I think other races have an even bigger penalty (I think it halves the planet’s output), though I haven’t played or looked at it in a while.It might work fine after they tweaked it, it used to be a planet would be depleted in like 7-8 turns. So you’d get a bonus on a planet that didn’t produce anything anyway and then once it was built up enough to be useful, it forever had a penalty.They made depletion take at least twice as long last time I looked.Edit: Looked it up quick to be sure, depletion takes a planet to 50% FIDS. I haven’t played this game yet, but I do know Tom really enjoyed it.
Could someone point out to me the disconnect with Tom’s relative exuberance for it vs the general gaming populations seeming ambivalence? The reddit community is only a fraction of even some fairly niche games like Hearts of Iron IV, for example, and it hasn’t been discussed here in weeks despite being relatively new-ish.Even when a game’s marketing fails it, when people really love a game they tend to discuss it to death, and I really haven’t seen that for this title.I only ask because I thought the first one was pretty decent and Endless Legends was even “good-ish” (having bought them both on large discount), so I thought I’d look into this. MisterMourning:Could someone point out to me the disconnect with Tom’s relative exuberance for it vs the general gaming populations seeming ambivalence?I can take a stab at it, but you’re probably better off if someone else weighs in. But I’d attribute any commercial or critical failings to the following, roughly in order of importance.People are dumb.It doesn’t do a good job with the “new user experience”. That’s such a biz-term and I hate it, but it’s accurate. Endless Space is no Civ V or VI. Say what you will about those games – I certainly will!
–but they’re very welcoming, very easy to sink into, very “come in, sit down, can I get you anything?” They know how to court new players. Endless Space 2 has a Euro snobbiness upfront. The documentation is in the interface and you have to look for it. It will not meet you halfway. There are scads of numbers and tooltips, and if you’re curious, the game is more than happy to reveal itself to you.
If you’re not, well, it’s got stuff to do and it can’t be bothered babysitting a bunch of brats who haven’t played it already.The archetypes aren’t familiar. The playable factions are weird. Space humans, of course.
But otherwise Space Ents, some slavers who might be lizards, extradimensional space beings, some space religious people. Some of them aren’t even familiar gameplay archetypes. Growing roots around solar systems?
Orbiting instead of colonizing? What do you mean my planets degrade after I’ve used them.It even avoids expected gameplay archetypes. The politics stuff, for instance. What kind of game that isn’t a Paradox spreadsheet does that??? There’s a reason Firaxis can just glom new tech trees onto their games and call it design. People understand tech trees. But Endless Space 2 has a tech platter, political leveling up, colonies that aren’t just like cities where you stick buildings on a planet, etc.
“What the heck is going on here?” someone might ask if he was just wanting some comfort food 4X. “This isn’t like the other games I’ve played!”.The production values are arty. Lots of big splashy but static drawings.
Endless Space 2 Strategy Guide
“Hey, what’s with all these paintings in my videogame? Where are the cutscenes?” I adore the space porn in this, but it’s largely in the combat, which is its own non-archetype.The combat isn’t easy to figure out and there’s no familiar paradigm for it. It’s very hands-on for the set-up, which can relate to the ship building, which relates to the tech tree, but in ways that aren’t very well documented. If you don’t know what you’re doing – the game won’t help you too much – it’s going to feel like you might as well roll a big fat space die.I’m sure there are other reasons people might not like Endless Space 2, but those are a few guesses off the top of my head.-Tom. Tomchick:some slavers who might be lizardsCyborg insects, I think.I think the big two of Tom’s list are certainly the “new user experience” and the unfamiliar archetypes.The documentation is mostly there in the form of tooltips, and having played Endless Legend I didn’t have trouble with most of it. But some of it is just missing. (On the plus, 99% of the bugs appear to be resolved now, which massively helps figure out the rules.)Amplitude loves weird and wonderful.
Endless Legend had an enslaving cult of sentient robots and “elves” undergoing a magic fueled industrial revolution. Endless Space 2 is maybe a bit less out there, but one of the most normal factions is a weird looking race of semi-aquatic creatures organised like the mafia.I love the arty production values, but I can see why they aren’t to everyone’s tastes.