Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 53

Author Topic: Civilization Beyond Earth - A spiritual successor to Alpha Centauri by Firaxis  (Read 152054 times)

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile

Better modability is a huge thing. Civ V might have the workshop, but civ 4 allowed you to use mods in multiplayer.
Logged

Greenbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Hmm, yeah, the considerable decline in moddability is probably the sharpest negative difference between Civ4 and 5.
Logged

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile

Aside from corporations, which weren't much more than reskinned religions, I'm not sure what Civ4 had that Civ5 doesn't at this point.
Random events and forests/jungles that can spread. And city health, actually...

Individual city happiness.

An earth map with real start locations and non-randomised resources.
So basically civ 4 = alpha centauri while civ 5 = civ 2?
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.

Greenbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

So basically civ 4 = alpha centauri while civ 5 = civ 2?

I think that's exaggerating a smidge.
Logged

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile

I'm lacking information somewhat since I've only ever played Civ/Civ2 and AC :p
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.

Greenbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

I'm lacking information somewhat since I've only ever played Civ/Civ2 and AC :p

Get on with the times, vibrating mang! :o
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile

Civ 2 cannot be at all compared to Civ V, because Civ 2 is actually good.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Ultimuh

  • Bay Watcher
  • BOOM! Avatar gone! (for now)
    • View Profile

Civ V is also good, at least when you have all the expansions.
Logged

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile

Civilization 1 and 2 had the best anti-stacking mechanic in place and I'm sad that they decided to go for stupid 1UPT instead:

"If the primary defender is destroyed, all other defenders (stacked) in the same square are also destroyed unless:
i) They occupy a city square, or
ii) The square has the fortress or airbase improvement built on it."

Seriously. That rule automatically balances the Stacks of Doom away. And it was already here.
Logged
._.

Greenbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Civilization 1 and 2 had the best anti-stacking mechanic in place and I'm sad that they decided to go for stupid 1UPT instead:

"If the primary defender is destroyed, all other defenders (stacked) in the same square are also destroyed unless:
i) They occupy a city square, or
ii) The square has the fortress or airbase improvement built on it."

Seriously. That rule automatically balances the Stacks of Doom away. And it was already here.

1UPT is a Civ5 thing, and I don't remember either 4 or 3 having that mechanic you mentioned. Frankly, and I played Civ2 recently, I don't remember such mechanic in it either. Maybe because the AI's far from stellar and didn't give me opportunities to test: inbetween constant government changes that kept it in disarray for years, it mostly hunkered down in its cities when at war and failed to mount significant offensives (on Prince or King, I can't recall the level I picked). Particularly if there's oceans in the way. The late game seemed to exacerbate the problem, for some reason.

Anyway, from my point of view, the only problem with 1UPT is that the AI has trouble coping with it at times. But they've been hacking away at it throughout Civ5's patching cycle, and CivBE will likely see more improvements done to it.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH

Civilization 1 and 2 had the best anti-stacking mechanic in place and I'm sad that they decided to go for stupid 1UPT instead:
"If the primary defender is destroyed, all other defenders (stacked) in the same square are also destroyed unless:
i) They occupy a city square, or
ii) The square has the fortress or airbase improvement built on it."
Seriously. That rule automatically balances the Stacks of Doom away. And it was already here.
The best? AC's was better I reckon, what with units on the same stack being heavily damaged but not destroyed outright unless the damage would be lethal to them. It allowed for a lot more variety in tactics, away from 1upt and doomstacking. The main problem with 1upt is moving soldiers around, at some point it just doesn't become fun enough to click everywhere and becomes too time consuming to even bother trying to invade anything.

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile

1UPT really messes up AI path-finding, and because Civilization 5 is primarily a single-player game, this leads to artificial solutions (i.e. AI cheats to compensate for lack of fighting ability).
Logged
._.

Chaoswizkid

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bring on the Chaos
    • View Profile
    • Realms of Kar'Kaish New Site

Am I the only one who likes doomstacks?
Doomstacks in Total Realism mod for Civ 4 anyway...
Logged
Administrator of the Realms of Kar'Kaish Project.

Niveras

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Doomstacks are excessive but it's more realistic than one unit per tile. That's why I'd rather see some kind of combination between unit per tile limits and the old doomstacks - like actual army units which are comprised of collections of individual units that fight together in the same combat. You can only have one active army per tile (so any given tile can only attack or defend once per turn), and if the defending army on the tile dies the rest take some damage, maybe scatter as they retreat (the idea being that the front line was overrun and all the un-deployed units at the back get caught unprepared). The armies can be deployed outside of your territory, but might take a couple turns to get organized, with some units or unit types being quicker at that than others, maybe also affected by tech (e.g. improvements in war tactics and coordination). They'd be limited by either the number available in-combat tiles or supply or coordination (could go either way, at tank column tank takes up more space and has more complex supply requirements than swordsman infantry, but by then you'd also have radio and combustion engines so they're easier to supply), with Great General units either improving how many combat tiles you have available to field, or providing additional supply. Lone individual units would always be for combat, but will attempt to retreat if attacked by an army (and would get slaughtered if they tried to attack an organized army).

I'd also probably get rid of "ranged" attacks by "ranged" units (except at the late game with air units and cruise missiles and maybe artillery that can fire over dozens of miles - not catapults/trebuchets), but instead they're done by cavalry units in sorties (cities maintain their ranged attacks under the same logic - defenders make a dash out to harass the enemy then return). Any army with cavalry can make that attack, the strength depending on just how many cavalry units are in that army, so you can still penalize an opponent as he tries to move units individually without forming armies beforehand.

I don't know many 4X games that have used this concept. Call to Power 2 had the army grid (which is my chief inspiration for this), while most space 4X have fleet mechanics (GalCiv, Endless Space, etc) but there's rarely further tactics involved beyond throwing as much dakka/armor as you can manage into the fleet's supply cap.
Logged

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile

Armies would need a supply route mechanic to balance, otherwise it'll lead to "who build the first big army wins"
Logged
._.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 53