EPTCivilization: Beyond Earth - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
| ||
|
riyanme
Philippines940 Posts
On April 20 2014 12:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Said tiers of, i forget, faction. ![[image loading]](http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/be_marine_level1.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/be_marine_level2.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/be_purity_marine.jpg) am i the only one thinking that 'niel armstrong is holding a rifle'? (first pic on the left. bullet type rifle, not laser ones) On April 20 2014 20:00 Nachtwind wrote: The only negative things i red here are for me personal their affection with CIV4/5 (i dislike 4/5 heavily) and that there´s no world council anymore. *sad tears* Oh and that XCOM players are a target audience ... dafuq?? world council? can you enlighten me about that? i believe there is such thing called as united nations in civ5 and why do you dislike 4/5? dont tell me you live 3 and below better than 4/5??? or worse, you dont like 4x? i wouldn't mind the xcom thing... | ||
boesthius
United States11637 Posts
| ||
|
riyanme
Philippines940 Posts
On April 21 2014 03:40 boesthius wrote: he's saying that in Beyond Earth there is no world congress; which they stated in the interview: i think its reasonable for not having a council here... for a change... a new gaming experience so not as to be so called as 'mod of other civs' totally agreeing to that. i dont want to play civbe and later find myself complaing, 'the heck, this is just the same as...' and maybe implemented in an civbe expansion~ | ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
On April 21 2014 04:08 riyanme wrote: i think its reasonable for not having a council here... for a change... a new gaming experience so not as to be so called as 'mod of other civs' totally agreeing to that. i dont want to play civbe and later find myself complaing, 'the heck, this is just the same as...' and maybe implemented in an civbe expansion~ Imagine that.. people have different taste, mind blowing, i know And yes i like the civ games that are actually made by sid meier more and i heavily dislike, because of own personal flavor, the 4/5 civs Another addition: If i would find myself in beyond earth and say "this is like alpha centauri.." than this moment is the call why i throwed 50 bucks at the sales man in the store | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On April 21 2014 04:19 Nachtwind wrote: Imagine that.. people have different taste, mind blowing, i know And yes i like the civ games that are actually made by sid meier more and i heavily dislike, because of own personal flavor, the 4/5 civs Another addition: If i would find myself in beyond earth and say "this is like alpha centauri.." than this moment is the call why i throwed 50 bucks at the sales man in the store Having played the entire series I just do not see the appeal of Civ 1 or Civ 3 compared to Civ 4 and 5. Civ 2 was definitely head and shoulders better than 1 and 3, but even so Civ 4 and 5 just offer so much more in the game play without the annoyingness of Civ 1 (workers) and Civ 3 (entire game). | ||
|
boesthius
United States11637 Posts
| ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On April 21 2014 07:52 boesthius wrote: I'm playing civ5 on deity on a regular basis at the moment and I can see why people dislike civ5 compared to 4 specifically. I think the biggest weakness in civ5 is in two places - tech and diplomacy. Someone had mentioned it earlier - but you're more or less going to go for the same build order on higher difficulty civ games every time - rush national college, oxford university, use the free tech to get into renaissance era, into architecture to get porcelain tower, then either sci theory or industrialization into gg. Social policies are a big problem too, you're forced into starting Tradition or Liberty(with tradition still generally being stronger) and going Rationalism once you unlock it, into ideological tenants. Well it is kind of to be expected that playing a turn-based game against the AI gets one-dimensional. But what is with playing against other players? Is the game not more interesting in multiplayer? (have not played it myself yet) | ||
|
boesthius
United States11637 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
| ||
|
URfavHO
United States514 Posts
| ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
you start with 1 guy, then an early tech gives you "officers" and you can have 2, then "sun tzus teachungs" give you more, electical communication gives you more, internet, sattelites etcetc. Works for every spacegame ever, prevents doomstacks, prevents balancing around the requirement to not fill the map with units. AIs work with it much better, too. How you resolve that stack combat is then up to the game designer, but i prefer not having tactical battles in these games. They become predictable and tedious. If you do it, you better design your whole game for them, like total war. Well, or you just make them totally badass, like disiples 2, but they dont make those kind of games anymore. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
On April 21 2014 08:35 Eliezar wrote: I totally love the way they got rid of doom stacks by having tiles only support one unit. It made the AI a lot worse tho. They get so caught up in chokes  (haven't played in a while so maybe they fixed it but it was pretty bad at release) | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
| ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On April 21 2014 08:40 Gorsameth wrote: It made the AI a lot worse tho. They get so caught up in chokes (haven't played in a while so maybe they fixed it but it was pretty bad at release) I'm not sure how much it has changed since I waited for all expos to come out to buy it, but I can say that it is smarter than Civ IV although possibly its abusable with pathing issues? Still isn't smart enough, but its better. | ||
|
boesthius
United States11637 Posts
| ||
|
boesthius
United States11637 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On April 21 2014 11:10 boesthius wrote: and yeah it's definitely smarter than civ4 but that really doesnt mean much. the AI is still pretty abusable when it comes to military - luring units out with weak units and workers and naval warfare is absolutely atrocious. you'll also notice that once you get to the point of playing immortal/deity your army isn't going to be that big, but you'll be able to take on their entire army with a few promoted siege units and 2 melee units being able to abuse the ai Agreed. I like the spirit of incorporating PanzerGeneral esque tile combat -- although I like your suggesting to, it would be cool to see technology allow more units in a tile to demonstrate the superior organizational power of modern armies -- but the ai has a hard time. Ranged combat has made it even more so, imo its just dumb that a crossbowman is a better unit than a machine gun because the way the upgrades work the crossbowman continues to have its weird range advantage. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
The campaign map is too small to accommodate armies and the AI has huge trouble moving them around. But if you let the AI have its stacks it will be able to gauge way better the ennemy strength and move things around. Once combat is engaged you go into a tactical mode, in which if the map isn't too complicated the AI should be challenging enough. Speaking of civ5 issues, most of mine have to do with the AI and balance. Both being linked since if the balance was a bit better you'd have AI performing better since they currently take unoptimal routes. Optimal routes is to be expected in that kind of game, problem is when it's fixed in stone and way better than other routes. For example, it's a shame that Honor is still a trash tree after 4years of Civ5. I'm currently wondering if I should look into making a minimalistic mod. Some sort of unofficial patch staying very close to the dev version but with stuff everyone agrees need to be rebalanced, like Honor, the American civ, Melee units... Wonder if people would be interested. | ||
| ||
