Sanati

So I meet Pariden on this map, very first turn she greets me with a "warm welcome." I go straight to diplomacy that turn and spend ~500 gold on trade and economic treaties and a NAP. Hit end turn. "Your transgressions can not be forgiven, we are at war." I imagine there's a second bug in there somewhere dealing with a "neutral" AI declaring war on me the turn after they meet me, which probably shouldn't happen. This is on normal difficulty. I didn't know 1.12 was o

[quote who="smakemupagus" reply="134" id="3271663"] One of the first things that happens when a Civ game comes out is people design an Earth map, then the maps of their favorite contenents, then their country, whatever. Then Middle earth, and the Game of thrones continent, and any of a dozen other maps. Not my cup of tea but hundreds of people design these maps and many many people download them.[/quote] I just checked Civfanatic's Civ 5 section, there are 20 thre

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="128" id="3271541"] Somebody should really tell Firaxis this before they release another Civ game filled with real world maps and scenarios. Really? That's a pretty ridiculous statement.[/quote] I know you didn't mention DLC, though somebody else did, but contrary to what most people believe, most of the Civ 5 DLC "real world maps" are actually random map scripts set up to roughly (or more accurately in some case

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="100" id="3270997"]Map packs don't require as many resources to create. You can use its sales to judge the general interest in DLC. [/quote] I've honestly never heard of anyone who plays 4x games wanting preset maps. You remember one of the four Xs is "eXplore" right?

[quote who="OrionM42" reply="30" id="3236882"]Actually, I like that fact that trained units grow in size, over the course of the game, as their training and tactics improve (including group cohesion, and interdependence). [/quote] This is represented well enough through army size. Adding squads to it is redundant. The game would be so much easier to balance if everything was a single unit.

I didn't vote, I can't get far enough into a game without getting ticked off. I like the new cities, but it feels like everything else went deep down the crapper... ignored, broken, imba, whatever. I'd rate the cities as good, but my overall experience this beta is terrible, so score that however you want.

[quote who="Satrhan" reply="28" id="3194241"]The whole idea behind on-map-building was that you could see at a glance what a city has and does (Brad doesn't like city screens apparently). Small added benefit was that you could influence the look of your city, which was a nice idea I suppose. But everything else that flowed from it were unintended exploits. Snaking to include nearby resources into the city and it's defence? Exploit. Creating teleporting highways? Exploit. Snaking to ex

[quote who="Satrhan" reply="23" id="3194039"]Manual placement has been disabled to prevent exploits (finally).[/quote] I'm not going to touch the other parts of your posts because those are your opinions and you are welcome to them, but this is just silly. Nobody should want a feature removed because one aspect of it is exploitable. A reaction much more grounded in common sense would be to want the exploit fixed, IE get rid of the teleporting city borders.

[quote quoting="post"]In Beta 4, players no longer have to manually place where they put improvements. Instead, players choose an improvement and it is placed for them. Additional improvements will tend to replace an existing one. This solves a problem we found in previous betas where cities became sprawling across the world and made navigation tedious late game.[/quote] Really not the change to cities I was hoping for. Would have preferred some inspiration flowing in from Warlock, wh

If there's not a lot of randomness than every match would be more similar/boring. The system doesn't encourage reloading, it encourages making due with what you have and adjusting your strategy for each game. If you sit there and spam ctrl-N or whatever until you get an ideal spot, then that's your prerogative but it's not what I do and I don't want an identical vanilla start every single game. If I have to deal with a 3/2 start then so be it, I will. It's not a huge d

If he didn't want opinions or suggestions he would have locked the thread and just let the poll speak for itself. The poll was for the ratings, the thread was for the reasons. He probably just wasn't expecting anything negative to be said at this point about his baby, just like with WoM (and yes I will beat that dead horse until it's bones turn to dust). Saying it's too late for significant gameplay changes is also strange. They've been saying this since the beta s

Last time I voted Poor, I hadn't seen any real development in the areas I felt were important. This time I voted Fair since the game is starting to move in the right direction IMO. I'm waiting to see what the new city system is going to be, that's an area that could use a lot of help and hopefully it will be an improvement. I still think the early game is too slow, there's far too much end turn bashing. Starting with clubs and rags works for civilization, but not here

Apparently line of sight isn't required to cast a debuff on a city, nor is being an enemy. Dispelling city debuffs every 1-3 turns is not fun, especially when you don't even know who is casting them.

Something I was thinking about in my previous post but didn't type out was something a little deeper with the mount system, but since a few people liked what I said here it is. I think all the creature lairs you can capture and all the horse and worg resources on the map should all be removed. Instead give a "creature" resource that changes depending on the faction looking at it. IE maybe Gilden would see horses while Kraxis sees spiders. Then take this resource and expand on it, so Kraxi

I'm super happy you're making faction differentiation a focus now. I have a feeling the current lore and leaders though are going to hamper this somewhat since they were originally designed to not be that different. I would suggest killing a few of them off and creating a few new races with much more obvious differences to play around with. A few races with different terrain and resources would add a lot of replayability and I can't really see that happening with the current choic

I would say the RPG aspect is Fair, the strategy aspect (which is still the majority of the game) is Terrible. There's no choices or interesting strategies to use, everything is vanilla and you just spam the same crap over and over every game for every race and faction. "Oh, hey look, I put spearmen on wargs, again, for the 5th game in a row. But this time they were blue, instead of red, because that matters ." I realize that was a bit snarky and I apologize, but I honestl

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="27" id="3075413"] Because he's trying to write an AI that can deal with anything, or at least as much as possible. If we were all to use your logic, why write a video game in the first place? [/quote] Except that's really not "my logic" at all. No matter how it's done, adding AI strategy to deal with an early game rush is going to cripple it's long game. You either get AI's with low level sovs/champs because they c

What is the point of testing like this? Serious question. I don't think anyone sits down to play a 4x game with the intention of winning as quickly as possibly, whether or not the AI can survive a turn 10 rush is kind of irrelevant I would think. I don't see how it could fare well anyway, regardless of intelligence. The way the game is set up your main force is your sov, and your sov is also the unit you explore with, so if you stumble across another civ in the first few turns

It also says it brings you to your city, and the description includes hearing the sounds of the city, but ya, doesn't do that.

I don't see anything wrong with the terrain as it is now, I would vote against super bright colors everywhere. Shared EXP might cause us to split our sovs and champs, but it will also make generic units even less appealing since they will "steal exp." I see people just having their sov roam the map solo crushing everything in their path (it already works, I played a game like that, with a caster), it's not really a better outcome. There needs to be a distinction between unit t

[quote who="Lord Reliant" reply="23" id="3070033"]It would be good to have monster strength and monster frequency as separate options, but that may be asking too much.[/quote] They are. World difficulty is monster strength and AI, monster density is what it sounds like.

So I'm playing as a custom empire Trog faction , I designed this cool Trog spearman unit. Was exploring the map and found Pariden, and noticed one of their cities was building my custom unit, which would be cool if it wasn't a Trog unit... There was no other Trog faction on the map if that maters.

It does stack, or it did in .76 and I don't see it mentioned in the notes.

I don't think they've touched these yet. 0.75 they didn't even have building graphics, they added placeholder buildings in 0.76 so they wouldn't be invisible. Pretty sure their stats are placeholders too.

Yes. One time an enemy attacked me and I started the battle at the same time my research screen opened, now that was a mess.