Utfärd
Guest
TL/DR
Ended with SMAC praised be its name
Ended with SMAC praised be its name
Wrong decade to make that joke. Nowadays Call to Power looks positively respectable compared to games like Civ: Revolutions, Civ: Beyond Earth, and probably Civ 5 & 6 too.
Your math is a bit wrong but the Civ 4 better than 5 and 6 must be trueCiv 4 > Civ 5
Civ 4 > Civ 6
therefore
Civ 5 = Civ 6
There, debate settled.
play freecivSeveral patches ago, I would've said Civ6 is better for multiplayer, because it desyncs more. These days it keeps desyncing too.
HOW HARD IT IS TO MAKE A TURN BASED GAME NOT DESYNC IN MULTIPLAYER?
TURN
BASED
GAME
How do you fuck up the netcode this bad, for DECADES. For DECADES they can't make a Civilization game not desync, even though you can literally play BY EMAIL.
Nuremberg trials for Firaxis Games lead developers when?
To quote another post of mine:Several patches ago, I would've said Civ6 is better for multiplayer, because it desyncs more. These days it keeps desyncing too.
HOW HARD IT IS TO MAKE A TURN BASED GAME NOT DESYNC IN MULTIPLAYER?
TURN
BASED
GAME
How do you fuck up the netcode this bad, for DECADES. For DECADES they can't make a Civilization game not desync, even though you can literally play BY EMAIL.
Nuremberg trials for Firaxis Games lead developers when?
Civ 5's netcode has had some improvements (fewer netsplits, crashes, and desyncs) but Civ 5's multiplayer still has some retarded issues (fewer does not mean gone), including the lack of a proper multiplayer lobby. It's very half-assed on the whole, and stupidly so, considering it would be trivially easy to add better options to find games or select multiplayer lobbies, as well as introduce multiplayer mod support (which the game fully supports, but you have to use a hack-ish method to trick the game into thinking your mod is part of a patch and then it works fine), and that would easily have made Civ 5 much more popular. Honestly, switching to dedicated hosts, improving the lobby, enabling multiplayer scenarios, and natively supporting multiplayer mods wouldn't've been particularly hard and would have improved the game considerably. Better game options for things like natural wonders would've also been good. These guys are very asleep at the wheel and have no clue what they're doing. It's also possible that this kind of half-assed design is partially motivated by a distaste for the competitive gaming community, as iirc there were elements of that in Civ 5's design. That was an explicit reason provided by the devs for why Civ 5 originally had a massive hard-on for making AI unpredictable: to stop people from being able to min-max it. Naturally, this resulted in people gaming and exploiting the AI with trades you intend to backstab them on since real diplomacy was useless and it was all going to end in war (against an AI utterly incompetent at warfare) anyway.Because peer-2-peer hosting is the future now, according to whatever bullshit fad is infesting some corner of software development. The only problem is that it fucks with latency and massively increases your odds of desync and netsplit, but who cares about that? It's time to do things the modern way!
Seems like a false positive to me. It happens sometimes, especially if you scan something with a ton of antivirus programs and only one of them declares there's a problem with it.
Well, because simultaneous turns are usually preferred in order to get a multiplayer game moving at a decent pace, latency actually ends up being non-trivial. The bigger problem really is that they went with P2P hosting because it was a more hip and modern way of doing things, even if the results are significantly worse.And yet you would think latency would be the least of issues in a turn-based game which, as a genre, are notoriously insensitive to latency, since this was a genre that came into being when people could be separated by lag times of months.
I think there is a setting (at least in Civ V) to have a slower pace and more turns.After Caveman 2 Cosmos, I can't play any vanilla Civ anymore. They feel way too fast, you pass through entire eras of history within minutes. In C2C it takes an hour before you even go sedentary!
Doesn't change the fact that there's way too few techs, buildings and units per era.I think there is a setting (at least in Civ V) to have a slower pace and more turns.After Caveman 2 Cosmos, I can't play any vanilla Civ anymore. They feel way too fast, you pass through entire eras of history within minutes. In C2C it takes an hour before you even go sedentary!
What I'm wondering about: Is there a strategic view in Civ 6 like in Civ 5? Or do you actually have to play with the 3D graphics?
Can somebody answer this please:
What I'm wondering about: Is there a strategic view in Civ 6 like in Civ 5? Or do you actually have to play with the 3D graphics?
I hope you're referring to multiplayer there. I have no idea how the fuck people consider singleplayer Civ V to be playable.6 annoyed me by adding climate change mechanics that break the game. 5 plus all the DLC is still a playable and fun game.
Yes.What I'm wondering about: Is there a strategic view in Civ 6 like in Civ 5? Or do you actually have to play with the 3D graphics?
That's obvious, but it's still interesting to note how the Civ series hasn't gotten any better since Civ 4. From Civ 5 onwards they're basically Civ 5 variants and they all manage to be be worse than Civ 5, which has plenty of major issues. It's a hell of a thing that Civ 6 managed to get outperformed by Civ 5 in playercount for something like two years after Civ 6's release.Both are shit and inferior to SMAC.
I hope you're referring to multiplayer there. I have no idea how the fuck people consider singleplayer Civ V to be playable.6 annoyed me by adding climate change mechanics that break the game. 5 plus all the DLC is still a playable and fun game.
It is.Trying to settle the matter of doomstacks isn't the worst idea [...]
Sometimes I like to roleplay as a maniacal, homicidally insane dictator.
That's half the fun of Civ.
Have you played Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri? If not, get it. It's much, much, much better (especially if you're interested in doing brutally repressive dictator things in a Civ game). Also, if you do get it, play SMAC in Classic mode (without Alien Crossfire) first. The expansion just... waters down the quality of the game.Still mad they didn't finish developing Beyond Earth. I liked the concept.
Eh, it really comes down to implementation.It is.Trying to settle the matter of doomstacks isn't the worst idea [...]
Sometimes I like to roleplay as a maniacal, homicidally insane dictator.
That's half the fun of Civ.
You're... LARPing in Civ 5.
Dude, playing Civ 5 against AI is like entering a martial arts tournament only to discover the other martial arts schools are full of retarded children trying to do poses and be power rangers. The lack of challenge reduces the whole endeavor into a waste of time. There are so many better games to play if you just want to be a warmongering maniac.
Have you played Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri? If not, get it. It's much, much, much better (especially if you're interested in doing brutally repressive dictator things in a Civ game). Also, if you do get it, play SMAC in Classic mode (without Alien Crossfire) first. The expansion just... waters down the quality of the game.Still mad they didn't finish developing Beyond Earth. I liked the concept.
Eh, it really comes down to implementation.It is.Trying to settle the matter of doomstacks isn't the worst idea [...]
Trying to remove stacks of doom by 1UPT is a terrible idea, what should be done is reduction of stacks size, not the possibility of stacks.Eh, it really comes down to implementation.It is.Trying to settle the matter of doomstacks isn't the worst idea [...]