[R&F] Devs Play as India

[h0nk0815]

Stopped watching at the unescorted Indian Settler. Still haven't fixed that yet, what a joke.

What's wrong with that? I send a lot of settlers unescorted, too.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

What about the others?

• Magnus: Great
• Liang: a beam, a bridge, or an elevation, or a mast
  
• Pingala: Name of an early Indian mathematican (don't know what it means)
  
• Victor: Winner or conqueror
  
• Amani: Peace, it will happen, it will become true
  
• Moksha: Is a term in hinduism, something to do with freedom from reincarnation
  
• Reyna: Queen

Source: Wikipedia/Wikitionary

 

[criZp]

I don't know about you, but 9 out of 10 times I don't escort my Settler either (and that's a conservative guess). Just because humans are a bunch of sociopaths that game the system and declare war to capture any unguarded settler while abusing that the AI doesn't do that doesn't mean it's a bad AI, it just means players are gaming the system. I mean, I guess you could say that they should be more careful of when to escort their settler or not, but seriously, stop blaming the AI when you're exploiting the rules.

If it's an exploit then firaxis is still to blame for not fixing it...

 

[leandrombraz]

I don't know about you, but 9 out of 10 times I don't escort my Settler either (and that's a conservative guess). Just because humans are a bunch of sociopaths that game the system and declare war to capture any unguarded settler while abusing that the AI doesn't do that doesn't mean it's a bad AI, it just means players are gaming the system. I mean, I guess you could say that they should be more careful of when to escort their settler or not, but seriously, stop blaming the AI when you're exploiting the rules.

The only thing I want to see fixed on how the AI deal with settlers is how often the AI walk all around the map with the settler or just freeze in place for several turns if the spot they was going for becomes unavailable. Escorted or not, I just want the AI to be better at settling good spot near their territory. It's sad to see a settler aimlessly walking around the whole game, only to settle on a ice wasteland in late game, assuming it isn't captured by barbarians.

 

[tedhebert]

The only thing I want to see fixed on how the AI deal with settlers is how often the AI walk all around the map with the settler or just freeze in place for several turns if the spot they was going for becomes unavailable. Escorted or not, I just want the AI to be better at settling good spot near their territory. It's sad to see a settler aimlessly walking around the whole game, only to settle on a ice wasteland in late game, assuming it isn't captured by barbarians.

Totally... And remember, no one is FORCING you to snatch up those settlers... If they annoy you that much, DON'T grab them ! I certainly never do, except in situations where I am ALREADY at war with a civ and locate one... but in the end, yea, what really annoys me is as described by leandrombraz here... when settlers run around in circles and never settle... I just hate that...

 

[leandrombraz]

One thing I'm worried about is how they are avoiding to show Alliances and Emergencies. They might be doing that as a marketing strategy or the systems might not be in a presentable state yet, which is worrisome since we are quite close to launch. It's quite possible that both systems will feel rushed and quite buggy into the first patch after the expansion.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

One thing I'm worried about is how they are avoiding to show Alliances and Emergencies. They might be doing that as a marketing strategy or the systems might not be in a presentable state yet, which is worrisome since we are quite close to launch. It's quite possible that both systems will feel rushed and quite buggy into the first patch after the expansion.

I would suspect it is a marketing strategy and maybe they want to use one of the civs that have yet to been revealed

Totally... And remember, no one is FORCING you to snatch up those settlers... If they annoy you that much, DON'T grab them ! I certainly never do, except in situations where I am ALREADY at war with a civ and locate one... but in the end, yea, what really annoys me is as described by leandrombraz here... when settlers run around in circles and never settle... I just hate that...

Agree, it is not fun to take advantage of the ai. It destroy the fun of the game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

One thing I'm worried about is how they are avoiding to show Alliances and Emergencies. They might be doing that as a marketing strategy or the systems might not be in a presentable state yet, which is worrisome since we are quite close to launch. It's quite possible that both systems will feel rushed and quite buggy into the first patch after the expansion.

I don't know--I kind of like how they're only discussing one new feature at a time.

 

[Siptah]

I would suspect it is a marketing strategy and maybe they want to use one of the civs that have yet been revealed

Which civs are likely for emergencies? Many possibilities for alliances...

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Which civs are likely for emergencies?

That I do not know. Cree would be good for alliances but I could see something like the Ottomans take a spot here.

 

[sonicmyst]

I don't know--I kind of like how they're only discussing one new feature at a time.

I think the Alliances feature is already done. As for the Emergencies, my worry is whether it will be easily exploitable if the AI don't achieve the emergency mission.

 

[agonistes]

One thing I'm worried about is how they are avoiding to show Alliances and Emergencies. They might be doing that as a marketing strategy or the systems might not be in a presentable state yet, which is worrisome since we are quite close to launch. It's quite possible that both systems will feel rushed and quite buggy into the first patch after the expansion.

Remember they didn't show China during the free-for-all. Turned out China just spammed walls the whole game.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think the Alliances feature is already done. As for the Emergencies, my worry is whether it will be easily exploitable if the AI don't achieve the emergency mission.

If they are about brute force production/gold/faith the ai may have some chance at them. If they are complicated with move units here and build stuff there, they may have some problem.

Remember they didn't show China during the free-for-all. Turned out China just spammed walls the whole game.

Well it is called the great wall for a reason even if the ai is a bit overzealous

 

[agonistes]

I don't know about you, but 9 out of 10 times I don't escort my Settler either (and that's a conservative guess). Just because humans are a bunch of sociopaths that game the system and declare war to capture any unguarded settler while abusing that the AI doesn't do that doesn't mean it's a bad AI, it just means players are gaming the system. I mean, I guess you could say that they should be more careful of when to escort their settler or not, but seriously, stop blaming the AI when you're exploiting the rules.



Uh, we haven't seen anything regarding penalties?

(also I really, really hope we won't. Penalties are why civ 5 sucks.)

Ah, c'mon Leyrann, that's not really an exploit. Cheesy? Yes, probably. An exploit? No. If that's an exploit, so is conquering a city. But let's face it, the game is so damn easy doing just about anything could be considered an exploit.

Now, if I'm Russia, and Poland and Norway are sending settlers down the 'settler chute' (as I call Finland), I'm going to end up conquering those cities shortly anyways, as they are in traditional Russian lands... so why not just do it now? It has no impact on the outcome of the game except I get to choose exactly where the city will be settled - and lord knows the ai can pick some s--- spots to settle in.

Besides, I send out unescorted settlers. If one gets taken, I'm not going to cry "exploit! the ai is exploiting!"

 

[Disgustipated]

Which civs are likely for emergencies? Many possibilities for alliances...

Italy. I'm assuming emergencies are like earthquakes, and Italy has experience with those. But honestly I have no idea what emergencies entail. Does anyone know?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Italy. I'm assuming emergencies are like earthquakes, and Italy has experience with those. But honestly I have no idea what emergencies entail. Does anyone know?

Emergencies are a response to one civ getting out in front of the pack. It facilitates the rest of the civs dog-piling on it. The devs feel this is a better way to deal with a runaway than a rubberband-type mechanic. So, if the emergency is religious in nature, it might give you a quest to convert 5 of the target's cities.

 

[Mort_Q]

Dang, I was hoping for volcanoes, or meteors that destroy districts (but leave a unique luxury Crystite resource).

 

[drubell]

I was able to watch a little of this earlier and had to go "oh noooooo" when she said Civ 6 was the first Civ game with an Indian leader who wasn't Gandhi

 

[Disgustipated]

Poor Asoka, forgotten by Firaxis

 

[Guandao]

Poor Asoka, forgotten by Firaxis

Forgotten by the young people of Firaxis maybe, but surely not those who worked on Civ4.....