1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

A few fixes for Rise and Fall

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by JasTiger, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. Bad Wolf

    Bad Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    631
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah I see so many people complaining that Deity is hard and I'm like, "Um, it's supposed to be...?" :shifty:

    I've never beaten a Deity game and I feel no shame in that. I really hate playing against cheaters, even if they're AIs.
     
  2. pgm123

    pgm123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    615
    Gender:
    Male
    My feeling is that it is intended for defense, so you kill units on the borders and they lose their closest city. That doesn't make it a good mechanic, but I think that's the intention.
     
  3. Bad Wolf

    Bad Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    631
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, I'm sorry if I offend, but this is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would ever agree to just pick up and move their city several miles away just on the say-so of some foreign empire. The Romans actually tried to make the Carthaginians do this in the lead-up to the Third Punic War, and the Carthaginians rebuffed them despite the fact that they almost certainly could not win a war against Rome. (And we all know how it worked out for them.) I mean, it was such an obvious non-starter than most historians I've read believe Rome was just trying to provoke a war by issuing the most outrageous demands possible.
     
  4. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Its not up to them. They gave up their sovereignty to join MY empire. They had poor planning and put their city in a frozen waste, far away. Rather than have them be a permanent belligerent free state, just come join my peeps and contribute to something greater. Being flipped is still a "lose" state for that city, so I don't see why its not up to ME with what i do with em. Again, this would only be for small cities, not ANY city.
     
  5. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,440
    Because if you do that they are NOT going to decide to peaceably join you.
     
  6. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    They don't know that when they sign the document. They agree to join me b efore I make the decision to accept or decline.
     
  7. Bad Wolf

    Bad Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    631
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you seriously arguing that the people of an independent city would just acquiesce to their total devastation and dispossession... because they signed a piece of paper?
     
  8. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    I'm saying its not up to them. They said "We are done being a Free City, we h and over sovereignty to you!" and I"m like, "Ok cool, move over here to my capital, get out of that bad city".

    You get the option as a player to either keep or ignore their request. That means they are giving their sovereignty to you FIRST and leaving it up to YOU to decide what to do with it.
     
  9. Sostratus

    Sostratus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    RE free cities:
    I get why you can't raze them when they ask to join you. It is annoying though. Maybe they could add an option for you to resettle them- remove city, add some fraction of the pop to your nearby cities, but perhaps at some cost to you like ~gold. Maybe firaxis wants you to have a flexible military able to handle it quickly, though.

    Their aggression is obnoxious. i don't know why they made them feral. Because as it stands, you want to put them down so they stop spawning. When you bring civs back via liberation, you can see how their tech pace stopped improving. I think they should use that kind of data with free cities so they don't bounce around so much in unit tech. And set the militia to be defensive (maybe only attack units in/adjacent to their borders.)

    RE polders:
    I think everyone but the devs who were in the let's play wants to loosen polder placement. They said in that video that they didn't reroll for that start. Boy are they lucky- any other start and they would have been feeling pretty sheepish in the video about not being able to show off polders.

    RE: other stuff
    They need to rework government legacy bonuses in one of two ways: either outright prohibit stacking the legacy card with the effect while you're in that government, or making the legacy bonuses distinct from the government bonuses. This makes warmongers OP with +8 combat strength from oligarchy, and up to +12 once you hit fascism. 48 strength legions, guys. In the Classical era. Who thinks this is okay?
    It also makes democracy blisteringly overpower the other governments in terms of production. I have written about it a few times, but if you actually do the math on it, it is so much better than communism that it's just a joke. I like the power level late game, but they probably need to swap the legacies for Comm and Democracy, as well as rebalance the card distributions for the governments in general to recognize that there are new demands on wildcard slots (legacy, dark age policies) that massively tip the scales towards those governments with multiple of them. (Merch Rep, Democracy). Mostly just paring a military card off of monarchy & fascism, into a wildcard, and thinking long and hard about whether communism needs 3 military slots itself.
     
  10. Bad Wolf

    Bad Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    631
    Gender:
    Male
    They disagree.
     
  11. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Who disagrees? The devs or the free city?
     
  12. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Whoa this is the dumbest thing. If a city is a Free City and you're next to it, and they wish to join, and you refuse, your units get bumped back AND they get reinforcements at a higher tech level than before. So now I have to kill this free city TWICE with units ill equipped to take on these new reinforcements, AND I'm out of position, AND the city healed to full.

    Yeah, now more than ever, if they wish to join and I want them gone, I should have the option right then and there to raze them, not re-fight them because I don't want their crappy city. It just respawned those two mech infantry after previously having swordsmen.

     
  13. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Also, I'm the only one capable of producing Mechanized Infantry, no one else can. So now suddenly a free state can? Furthermore, if another civ takes that civ through loyalty do THEY get mech infantry despite being 2 eras behind that tech!?
     
  14. TheodoreTrump

    TheodoreTrump Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Fix the A.I.
     
  15. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    A small digression.

    I’m starting to think the loyalty and free city mechanics we have are still sort of beta. The free city mechanics seem very bare, and look like they might just be a placeholder. Loyalty is fine in terms of core mechanics but is missing a lot of polish, eg religion and tourism have no impact on loyalty. Alliances (less so) and Emergencies (more so) also feel a bit undercooked.

    The developers seem to have a very iterative approach to Civ, which I can understand. My guess is the developer wanted to get some big base systems in place (particularly loyalty), and then flesh them out in the next expansion.

    Specifically, my guess is the whole cede / raze / free city options will get looked at again (and we’ll probably get some sort of vassal system); loyalty will get more nuanced; there will be more mechanics around ideologies and loyalty (and maybe also ideologies and alliances and emergencies); and some sort of world congress shinanigans because that would be huge selling point with Civ’s player base.

    So, what does this mean for free cities now? I don’t expect there will be any major revamp, although the developers may tone down free city aggression. I think they could also fix the tech era of free city units by just making them spawn units one tech level lower than the current era.
     
  16. JasTiger

    JasTiger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    26
    Well in that game of mine as you saw in the screenshot, the city was there and beliggerant and kept spawning crap. I didn't want that city at all. It seems being "retaken" resets everything each time. .So if you don't kill it in the 10 turns before it flips, it'll ask to join again and respawn units AGAIN. Forever. Just needs to be an option.
     

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop