How will bnw change the game for nq players

N

NO QUITTERS

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
15
seems lıke BNW is made for NQ games. Seems lıke the game ıs gettıng better for dıplo culture and now trade routes..wow.. lets not forget relıgıon .plenty of new cıvs. congresses.. I cant ımagen how thıs game ıs gettıng lıke my chıldhood dream of a perfect game.. We at NQ Wıll agaın welcome new and old players to try out our full dıplo.culture.trade.relıgıon.WAR games..

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/NO_QUITTERS

Are we agreen on that thıs game wıll make NQ a perfect place to play BNW

SULTAN

Moderator Action: Moved to MP.
 
Hybrid mode is going to be incredibly fun in NQ

Problem is we play Hybrid mode games when it comes out we probably will have to add on another hour (or maybe 2) to expectations for every game
 
NO QUITTERS said:
seems lıke BNW is made for NQ games. Seems lıke the game ıs gettıng better for dıplo culture and now trade routes..wow.. lets not forget relıgıon .plenty of new cıvs. congresses.. I cant ımagen how thıs game ıs gettıng lıke my chıldhood dream of a perfect game.. We at NQ Wıll agaın welcome new and old players to try out our full dıplo.culture.trade.relıgıon.WAR games..

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/NO_QUITTERS

Are we agreen on that thıs game wıll make NQ a perfect place to play BNW

SULTAN

Moderator Action: Moved to MP.
Click to expand...

The Culture Victory will be worthless still, if I or another player can sit back and just work science specialists the whole game, how the hell will culture be utilized to compete with it. Science Victory so far is the only victory condition that doesn't require competition with the world. You rush science buildings, work their specialists over everything else, bulb your saved GS horde when you have 800+ science, and build every wonder because your so far ahead of people in wars, culture races, and money races.

Next is the trade which when you consider that the average multiplayer game is 6 players, 2 will get killed in the first 75 turns, and another 1 will jump far ahead of everybody else. That leaves you with 2 players to trade with, unless you wanna sabotage the game and give the lead player gold so he can win faster. City States will also be there but will be much weaker trade partners. Then finally you have to hope those other 2 players aren't worth conquering (which is rare) and impossible to not do if the lead player is making 12 cities full of science. Trade will work much better if the player amount is upped to 8 or we start including AI in games (which is free cities to good players).

Then finally with the addition of Venice, the whole idea of people in NQ always playing random civs will fall apart. You can't work science in puppet cities, only purchase the buildings. Venice is a civ that can not win in multiplayer against good players when you consider all multiplayer matches are won by dominating other players and being far ahead in science. Those 18 trade routes also work against the civ in multiplayer when you consider that Venice will have to conquer to stay relevant since one city can never win.

Expansion is great and all but it doesn't fix the core problems with balance in Civilization 5.
 
plokoon9619 said:
The Culture Victory will be worthless still, if I or another player can sit back and just work science specialists the whole game, how the hell will culture be utilized to compete with it. Science Victory so far is the only victory condition that doesn't require competition with the world. You rush science buildings, work their specialists over everything else, bulb your saved GS horde when you have 800+ science, and build every wonder because your so far ahead of people in wars, culture races, and money races.

Next is the trade which when you consider that the average multiplayer game is 6 players, 2 will get killed in the first 75 turns, and another 1 will jump far ahead of everybody else. That leaves you with 2 players to trade with, unless you wanna sabotage the game and give the lead player gold so he can win faster. City States will also be there but will be much weaker trade partners. Then finally you have to hope those other 2 players aren't worth conquering (which is rare) and impossible to not do if the lead player is making 12 cities full of science. Trade will work much better if the player amount is upped to 8 or we start including AI in games (which is free cities to good players).

Then finally with the addition of Venice, the whole idea of people in NQ always playing random civs will fall apart. You can't work science in puppet cities, only purchase the buildings. Venice is a civ that can not win in multiplayer against good players when you consider all multiplayer matches are won by dominating other players and being far ahead in science. Those 18 trade routes also work against the civ in multiplayer when you consider that Venice will have to conquer to stay relevant since one city can never win.

Expansion is great and all but it doesn't fix the core problems with balance in Civilization 5.
Click to expand...

Seems lıke culture vıctory wıll get easıer ıf you ask me:)
Powerfull culture cıvs and easıer to generate more culture wıth relıgıon*trade*wonderspammıng*
 
It seems like the game will be slowed abit down science wise. If I'm right it will mean more time for actually do other things then scientist farming and "Rationalism-rushing". The game will be more complex, and need more skill to master. The good old non-brainer, boring strategies will get some good competition.

Why am I saying this?

-Well, early game it will take longer to get started with the expansion, since you have to work for your income building trade routes, and make sure they are protected.

- The naval tech route will be important too now, both to get naval trade routes, and to protect them, pluss the coastal cities you will need to become a trading power. Spreading out more how you Tech might be more benefitial then before now, compared to rushing a line in the tech tree for a certain benefit (for instance reaching the age you can choose rationalism as a policy).

- You can't build settlers anymore if your unhappiness is +1 or more. This is perhaps the most important change of them all in my view, and will really make the early game alot more interesting and challenging. You really need to get those lux improved fast, meet trading partners, and perhaps get a CS ally (instead of stealing their stuff).

- Stealing workers and demanding tribute from CS is indirectly nerfed, since it won't give you a mission to create a trade route to the CS's. This mission will make it easier to ally CS's for those building their workers themselves, and don't threathen the CS's to pay protection Money.

- Rationalism is nerfed alot by:
*Opener gives 10% more Research (not 15%) when empire happy.
*Finisher gives one tech, not two.
*Choices of policies are mixed arround abit, so you cant take those 3 that increase research the most first.
*You'll need the whole rationalism tree to get Great Scientists from faith.
*Some other policies looks too good to miss out on too know, opportunity cost of getting rationalism is getting bigger.

- You'll get policies faster now, and investing in culture will be more wortwhile because of that.

Alot of other reasons too I guess, but this is my thoughts about new game mechanism effects on expansion vs tech so far.

NB! I both hope and believe that a turn 170 Sci-vic will be impossible in an NQ FFA (Quick speed game), even for Schumi..... ;) I'd like to see games closer up to the 330 time vic limit, hehe, with interesting gameplay the whole way, from start to finish.
 
I didn't know about that settler change wow. That is a pretty huge change there
 
Luckystrike77 said:
- Stealing workers and demanding tribute from CS is indirectly nerfed, since it won't give you a mission to create a trade route to the CS's. This mission will make it easier to ally CS's for those building their workers themselves, and don't threathen the CS's to pay protection Money.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that they won't give you the mission later because of your actions in the past? Does this apply to all missions or only certain ones?
 
Big J Money said:
Are you saying that they won't give you the mission later because of your actions in the past? Does this apply to all missions or only certain ones?
Click to expand...

Just saying that bullying CS's makes it less likely they give you any missions at all.... :)

That could be a tradeoff for bullying now, since such an early mission will be rather easy to fulfill.
 
Luckystrike77 said:
Just saying that bullying CS's makes it less likely they give you any missions at all.... :)

That could be a tradeoff for bullying now, since such an early mission will be rather easy to fulfill.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
I just watched madjinn playing BtM.
He stole a worker from CS in 1 turn and after that was able to make a trade route to that CS.
What do you mean by "giving you a mission"?
You dont need a missioin for that.

And then about victory condition balance:
It is natural to the game mechanics that a peaceful victory will profit from the quick speed.
I guess that standard speed is more balanced?
 
Airny said:
I just watched madjinn playing BtM.
He stole a worker from CS in 1 turn and after that was able to make a trade route to that CS.
What do you mean by "giving you a mission"?
You dont need a missioin for that.

And then about victory condition balance:
It is natural to the game mechanics that a peaceful victory will profit from the quick speed.
I guess that standard speed is more balanced?
Click to expand...

You won't need a mission to do it, but it's of course nice to get a mission to do it. Don't you agree? In Madjinn's video the stealing of the worker also crippled the CS meaning that he got less out of the trade route. With the lux built out etc. the trade route will be worth more.
 
I don't see many games in Hybrid mode now anymore in NQ. They just take too long. What are your experiences so far with it in NQ?
 
NCDKorrigan said:
I'd like to see more hybrid in NQ. Those clickfests just aren't fun.
Click to expand...

Yep. I tested it with 6 players on Pangaea, and all were warmongers. We used 8 hours to only get to turn 100, so it might be hard to finish games the same day with this mode.

I wish Firaxis would just change simultaneous mode with putting in a time delay after a unit is moved. I suggest that a moved unit (a unit that can do no more actions that turn) gets a 15-20 seconds delay before it can move again, even if a new turn has started in the meantime. This would solve the hugest problem with simultanous turns combat; the "doubble movements" that are so hard to respond to, and that makes simultaneous Battle so unbalanced compared to the core game that is turn based.

This delay should also effect shift clicked moves as well, negating the need for a NQ-rule against shift clicking unit actions as well.
 
NCDKorrigan said:
I'd like to see more hybrid in NQ. Those clickfests just aren't fun.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Some people are comparing hybrid to simultaneous moves, which I think is not fair.
Simultanueous has different game mechanics than the original games.
For me it is a no-brainer because I like to think in turn-based games and take my time.
Hybrid allows you to play relatively quick "real" civ5 games with your friends.
After one session just save and load later.
A real pitboss mode for standalone could make this games my favorite MP game.
 
Luckystrike77 said:
Yep. I tested it with 6 players on Pangaea, and all were warmongers. We used 8 hours to only get to turn 100, so it might be hard to finish games the same day with this mode.

I wish Firaxis would just change simultaneous mode with putting in a time delay after a unit is moved. I suggest that a moved unit (a unit that can do no more actions that turn) gets a 15-20 seconds delay before it can move again, even if a new turn has started in the meantime. This would solve the hugest problem with simultanous turns combat; the "doubble movements" that are so hard to respond to, and that makes simultaneous Battle so unbalanced compared to the core game that is turn based.

This delay should also effect shift clicked moves as well, negating the need for a NQ-rule against shift clicking unit actions as well.
Click to expand...

A very basic and logical solution luckystrike. Yea that would solve most problems if units had say a 20-30 second delay before they could move again, but say only if you are at war with a civ - preventing double moves [Which are the problem] while at the same time making sure Multiplayer still thrives. Sounds like a more effective and much better solution than what Hybrid mode currently is
 
I think its interesting seeing the dynamics of players using trade routes. Some people want coastal cities to have trade ships and some people try and avoid coast all together as its near impossible to defend properly.

Coastal cities are now high reward/high risk in MP - You can grow them with food really quick/gold, but still potentially risk losing it all
 
Luckystrike77 said:
Yep. I tested it with 6 players on Pangaea, and all were warmongers. We used 8 hours to only get to turn 100, so it might be hard to finish games the same day with this mode.

I wish Firaxis would just change simultaneous mode with putting in a time delay after a unit is moved. I suggest that a moved unit (a unit that can do no more actions that turn) gets a 15-20 seconds delay before it can move again, even if a new turn has started in the meantime. This would solve the hugest problem with simultanous turns combat; the "doubble movements" that are so hard to respond to, and that makes simultaneous Battle so unbalanced compared to the core game that is turn based.

This delay should also effect shift clicked moves as well, negating the need for a NQ-rule against shift clicking unit actions as well.
Click to expand...

And this is why I don't see random internet games using hybrid or turn modes, most people do not have 8 hours to play a game. It might be ok for pre-organized weekend games, but that is about it.

Yes I hope that in Civ6 they realize that they already had the best solution in Civ4, a 8 sec unit timer....

CS
 
CanuckSoldier said:
And this is why I don't see random internet games using hybrid or turn modes, most people do not have 8 hours to play a game. It might be ok for pre-organized weekend games, but that is about it.

Yes I hope that in Civ6 they realize that they already had the best solution in Civ4, a 8 sec unit timer....

CS
Click to expand...

We often use 8-12 hours for a NQ game from start to finish (FFA), but then you are at turn 220-250 (BNW at quick) with simultaneous moves, and that's OK (finally Civ5 has become as deep as a Civ-game should be). Most of us love that BNW has brougt more interesting stuff to do, and that you are progressing slower through the tech tree, but with the hybrid mode you could at least double the time used.

I'd love some fixes to the worst simultaneous combat exploits, but hybrid mode is not the sollution, at least not for the NQ-games in general. Of course you are free to arrange games with it if you want, but better make sure all the players can continue at a set date another day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom