Page 369 of 369

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:49 am
by Steve C
Trix2000 wrote:See this? This is exactly what I was talking about. Interesting.

One of these days I need to actually pick up the game. I never managed to get too deep into DF in the past (largely due to not connecting well with the interface/visuals), but Rimworld seems like a more palatable romp through the same sort of madness.

Honestly that's just normal Rimworld play while min-maxing the mechanics a little bit. Properly interesting stories can be found on reddit at /r/TalesfromRimworld. It's the systematic failures that make for the good stories. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEJ6QymV7-o

Yeah I know exactly what you mean about DF. I tried DF for only about 10mins before I gave up. I really wanted to like it. Thankfully Rimworld is exactly what I wanted DF to be.

BTW a new Rimworld version just went out a week or so ago. The very first beta version- B18! It's only been in alpha up to this point. IMO A17 already felt like a complete game.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:02 am
by The Rocketeer
If it's any consolation, we're ratifying a motion to let the Rimworld players push out the Dwarf Fortress players' ice floe first, before we push out the Rimworld players' ice floe.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:07 am
by Daemian Lucifer
What about crusaders kings players ice floe?

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:39 am
by The Rocketeer
Maintaining a low CKII player population density has been deemed necessary due to blobbing concerns; we don't want them going all "Umayyad" on us.

The WH40k players have graciously assented to push themselves out into space as soon as it is whatsoever practicable. They reassert this constantly and without provocation.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:00 am
by Daemian Lucifer
So the only ones left for us to deal with are the dark souls players.I suggest writing "Loot at the bottom,safe to jump down 17'' to the left" at the top of the grand canyon.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:13 am
by grahams_xwing
All of this niche game player culling doesn't do anything about the zombie hordes of Fifa and COD players though.. Could we at least try and corral them somewhere? Leave them to their microtransactions and prestige levels until nature takes it's course?

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:26 am
by SpammyV
Y'know, Darkwood, you're really not filling me with hope for the future when I examine an enemy after killing it and you have to specify that it was a small one.

Also, I have a small caliber pistol. I have small caliber magazines. Are you telling me that the one doesn't go in the other? Because you're not obeying your usual combining items rules. What, do I have to go to the wolf to tell me how to reload a pistol?

The Wolf wrote:"Meat... Seriously? Did you never- Did you even watch movies before the trees sprang up? ...You wouldn't happen to know an equally desperate but slightly less stupid sap I can deal with, would you?

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:57 pm
by John
. . . Civilization V. Is it weird that Civilization V is my favorite Civilization game? [1] I feel like I get Civilization V--or maybe that Civilization V gets me--in way that just isn't the case with any of the other Civilization games. [2] I'm not entirely sure what magic is at work here. Maybe I just found a set of social policies that really do it for me. [3] I suspect, however, that it's the global happiness mechanic. When I played Civilization IV, I never quite figured out the ideal timing for founding new cities. It was never clear to me what effects founding a new city would have on my tax receipts or the happiness of my existing cities. In Civilization V, I find that it is almost always financially rewarding to found a new city so that a quick check of the global happiness score is all I need to determine whether or not to start production on another settler. The happiness meter also tells me which wonders to prioritize. [4] The result is a strong, stable empire in the early game, well-developed cities in the late game, and usually--but not always--a commanding lead in technology. [5] I've been playing on Prince difficulty, which in another game series would probably be called Normal. I've reached the point where I almost always win, regardless of my starting situation. I would increase the difficulty, but it doesn't feel like I'm winning too easily. [7]

I also enjoy the one-unit-per-tile rule. I'm not going to claim that it's brilliant, but it does add a fun puzzle element to combat. I particularly like that it makes the map and terrain matter as something other than a collection of production bonuses for your cities. I have come to consider cities located on open plains as easy meat, whereas I have come to regard those located on peninsulae or, worse, next to mountains with a certain amount of dread. In the older Civilization games it really didn't matter [8] where a city was located as long as there was a space next to it to put a doom-stack.

This message has been brought to you by Footnotes. Footnotes, keeping John's paragraphs to a reasonable length since 2017. Ask for Footnotes in your favorite forums today!

----------

[1] I haven't played Civilization VI. And if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between Civilization V and Alpha Centauri, I'd choose Alpha Centauri.
[2] At least not since Civilization II. No, not even Alpha Centauri.
[3] Tradition. I used to go with Honor or Liberty but Tradition seems to support my preferred style of play better.
[4] The happiness wonders, obviously.
[5] A sufficiently blobbed-up enemy [6] can sometimes pose a challenge in this regard.
[6] The Mongols. It's almost always the Mongols. I think I've developed some kind of complex about the accursed Mongols.
[7] My last victory was actually rather nerve racking. I was playing on a Pangaea map and had three powerful neighbors with military technology just a step below my own. And that's after the centuries-long war to exterminate the Mongol menace.
[8] For purposes of combat.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:27 am
by Ringwraith
Doom stacks can certainly stay dead. I really did not like that design at all.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:15 am
by BizzzzaroEwok
Peninsula cities aren't particularly great on defense, although they're serviceable against AI at the difficulty you're playing. Not against humans or higher difficulties. True, the land approach is narrow. But the sea is usually more open, and you can attack, and take, cities with melee ships: Caravels, Privateers, Ironclads, and Destroyers. You can bombard them with ranged ships, although they don't get the promotion bonuses against cities that artillery does (but you can make up for it with sheer quantity and ease of maneuvering, compared to land bound, slow, fragile artillery).

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:36 am
by djw
Narratorway wrote:Quake. As in the original. And for the first time ever, with the actual soundtrack!

Honestly, it hasn't made much of a difference. The music so ambient focused, that I often forget its there. I suppose there's something to be said for texture and to be fair, I've only played through the first episode so far, but still...it's not exactly gripping me.


I have very fond memories of playing Quake and its expansions 20 years ago. I'm not sure how I'd feel about playing it now. In any case, if I recall correctly, the music grows on you.

The expansions have a more aggressive metal sound track that you might like better. At least I think they did. Going from really old memory.

I liked Quake better than Quake 2. I liked the weird levels and and creatures better than big slow cyborgs, even though there was no rhyme or reason to them.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:21 am
by NegaRetsam
I really like CivV and most of it's simplifications to the Civ formula, overall. I'm really not a huge fan of global happiness, though. I can see why they wanted to simplify that down from the CivIV version, but I just don't like how it works in practice.

Mostly it's the military conquests giving a huge penalty to happiness. I suspect it's deliberately an anti-blobbing mechanism, but I'm not a fan: it just feels like too obvious and non-sensical a punishment for success. Like if I'm Caesar and I conquer Gaul, it makes sense that all those Gallic cities are outraged and unhappy and unproductive, but it'd nonsensical that Rome in flames due to all the outrage against my successful military campaign. Worse, even, that one of the penalties to unhappiness is severe combat penalties: nothing destroys the morale of an army more than multiple decisive victories apparently.

---

I haven't played CivVI either; I'm excited that they've announced an expansion, though, because that means I'll probably be able to get the base game for a pretty good sale this Christmas, or at least the next major sale after that. Hopefully.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:21 am
by Ringwraith
VI fixes the global happiness thing, by the way, back to more individual levels.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:45 pm
by John
BizzzzaroEwok wrote:But the sea is usually more open, and you can attack, and take, cities with melee ships: Caravels, Privateers, Ironclads, and Destroyers.

I had no idea that melee ships existed. I only have the vanilla version of the game. Are they from one of the expansions? In my experience, Caravels and Destroyers operate just like Triremes, Frigates, Ships of the Line (the English version of the Frigate) or Battleships. I've never encountered Privateers. To be fair, I've never tried a direct attack on a city using a naval vessel.

NegaRetsam wrote:I really like CivV and most of it's simplifications to the Civ formula, overall. I'm really not a huge fan of global happiness, though. I can see why they wanted to simplify that down from the CivIV version, but I just don't like how it works in practice.

Mostly it's the military conquests giving a huge penalty to happiness. I suspect it's deliberately an anti-blobbing mechanism, but I'm not a fan: it just feels like too obvious and non-sensical a punishment for success. Like if I'm Caesar and I conquer Gaul, it makes sense that all those Gallic cities are outraged and unhappy and unproductive, but it'd nonsensical that Rome in flames due to all the outrage against my successful military campaign. Worse, even, that one of the penalties to unhappiness is severe combat penalties: nothing destroys the morale of an army more than multiple decisive victories apparently.

I'm sure you're right. It's definitely put me off trying to achieve Conquest victories except on small maps. Fortunately, I have always preferred Tech victories so it hasn't been too much of a problem for me in practice. That said, I've reached the point now where the challenge is not in achieving victory but in getting a high score, and I find that my score at the end of the game can easily jump by a thousand points or so just for conquering half-a-dozen cities. Still, to minimize unhappiness penalties I've taken to razing cities that don't have some sort of strategic value (a wonder, access to a resource, or a useful location). With the right social policies and wonders it's still possible to have a large empire and really high happiness. I did it recently with the Persians (who also get happiness bonuses for building banks, for some reason) though that was an unusually successful game for me.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:17 pm
by Lucifer Daemian
John wrote:I never quite figured out the ideal timing for founding new cities. It was never clear to me what effects founding a new city would have on my tax receipts or the happiness of my existing cities.


I never got the hang on the exact formula[1],but it felt intuitive to me.The closer a city is to the capitol,the less expensive it is,and more happy.But ultimately,its not that important.Because the most important thing is to connect the city to the capitol,either via roads,or better via river/coast[2].Unless you plop a city at the other side of the world,most of the time the trade itself will offset the taxes[4].I found that this is my preferred play style.Back in the days of yore,I always went for science first,science second,and everything else third.But these days,I go for money in practically every game[5].

As for one unit per tile,I dont think it was a good idea.I gave it a go,but civ simply isnt the game for it.Maybe they should try something else.Make it so that all the units outside a city suffer collateral damage[7] in every fight,perhaps.Or limit the amount of attacks from a tile to just 1 per turn.Heck,even keeping the 1 unit/tile limit can work if only they remove the limit for civilian units[8].And while this current system somewhat removes the doomstacks,it also removes the automation you had back with those.Now you have to carefully plan out every units move if you dont want to waste turns.Still,combat was always the worst aspect of civilization games,so the less of it the better.

But whether you guys like V or not,you should definitely play VI.Its an improvement in every aspect.And it offers cities that sprawl over multiple hexes,which is neat.

[9]

----------

[1]Though Ive read it quite a few times.Its not really that convoluted as it first appears.
[2]A combination of the three can be used,but coasts are easiest to defend,and hardest to block[3].
[3]A significant naval force can do it,but at that point you are pretty much doomed due to an imminent invasion from the sea.
[4]Especially if you focus on nations and civics that boost trade.
[5]Because,of course[6].
[6]The title of that video says it all.
[7]Meaning they lose health whether they fought or not,whether you won or not.
[8]It really is stupid to block your "friends" development by choking him with your cheap units.
[9]So are we doing these now to shame The Rocketeer or just cause its quirky?

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:52 pm
by Lucifer Daemian
Ive got my hands on spellforce 3.Well....this is a weird one...

Ok,so I love this series.Spellforce one was really unique for me.Not just because of its weird rpg/rts blend,but because it is the only rts game where I had to cheat in order to win a map because the ai was consistently kicking my ass.And I dont mean using cheat codes,but rather not triggering the rts portion until I wiped out the enemy base slowly with just my heroes.

Anyway,the first one had a neat story that I enjoyed very much as well.The expansions and spellforce 2 I played because I liked the mechanics,but the stories in those were just meh(though the idea of a floating city was nice).Now 3 has immersed me in its story practically from the start.And it seems to have some small branches here and there which is an added bonus.And the rts component seems to have some really nice additions to it that Im enjoying.So I definitely recommend it to everyone.

BUT

yes,there is always a but...I dont like how they handle the rpg mechanics and the combat.In 1,combat was a bit chaotic.But thats mostly because you could shape your heroes any way you wished,with up to 10 abilities at your disposal at once.And that was just your main.Your other heroes had their own (somewhat smaller) sets,and some units had their own abilities.Also,you had an army of heroes with you,truly capable of annihilating all but the toughest opponents.So yeah,it was great.2 cut this down a bit,but it had pause,making it easier to navigate.Also,having a unit selected meant that you could just click on an appropriate ability and have it cast on that unit by that hero/creature.3 however,has just 3 abilities per hero,main or not,3 consumables(two potions and one special potion),and you can only pause if you alt select a unit.Which is really not satisfying at all.Also,the level up trees just dont seem that useful or fun.I dont know,maybe it gets better later,but Im not holding my breath.

Still,Im enjoying it very much.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:50 pm
by djw
NegaRetsam wrote:I really like CivV and most of it's simplifications to the Civ formula, overall. I'm really not a huge fan of global happiness, though. I can see why they wanted to simplify that down from the CivIV version, but I just don't like how it works in practice.

Mostly it's the military conquests giving a huge penalty to happiness. I suspect it's deliberately an anti-blobbing mechanism, but I'm not a fan: it just feels like too obvious and non-sensical a punishment for success. Like if I'm Caesar and I conquer Gaul, it makes sense that all those Gallic cities are outraged and unhappy and unproductive, but it'd nonsensical that Rome in flames due to all the outrage against my successful military campaign. Worse, even, that one of the penalties to unhappiness is severe combat penalties: nothing destroys the morale of an army more than multiple decisive victories apparently.

---

I haven't played CivVI either; I'm excited that they've announced an expansion, though, because that means I'll probably be able to get the base game for a pretty good sale this Christmas, or at least the next major sale after that. Hopefully.


Happiness is an abstraction, so it will always have some oddness to it. However, Caesar made *some* Roman's nervous with his conquests, because they were worried that he had too much influence after his conquests. Roman's who were not directly involved in politics might not have cared about that so much, but they didn't really get anything out of the victory either. I'm not going to claim that the happiness stat directly models this, but its not to crazy to claim *some* unhappiness in the population after a victory.

Re: This week I have been mostly playing...

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:28 am
by Daemian Lucifer
Global happiness is not the problem on its own.The real problem is how stupidly the game reacts to changes in resources.Just the mere founding of a new city instantly jumps the cost of a bunch of wonders,and even stops them if they require a specific building in every city you own.Even ignoring the "realism" aspect of this*,this is stupid from the gameplay perspective,because you either have to postpone building a new city for a few turns until your wonder finishes,or deal with this sudden jump in requirements.

Same jump is present with global happiness.Now conquering stuff and having discontent spread like wildfire through your empire is not a bad thing,since it discourages reckless warfare and conquest,but having your empire become unhappy because founding a couple of villages on the outskirts tipped over your carefully balanced scales is silly.

*Realism is a really silly thing in games,because it never really exists.All games are just different levels of abstractions.