MadJinn's PAC Game

[ggmoyang]

BTW LEV Tank can't cross rivers without penalty, not really levitating... (at least they can use roads)

And I don't see build normal road icon after magrails, is this really the case?

 

[Gamewizard]

I've put over a thousand hours into Civ V...I'm just giving Firaxis the money I owe them when I buy BE.

Also, on internal trade routes, since both cities receive bonuses, perhaps the 1 route should count as 1 for both cities. So a capital could only receive the 2 (later 3) max internal routes.

 

[Dactyl]

@Gamewizard, I know what you mean!

 

[gunnergoz]

I've put over a thousand hours into Civ V...I'm just giving Firaxis the money I owe them when I buy BE.

Yep, with 2,000+ hours in myself, I know exactly what you mean as well. Civ V has been an excellent long term entertainment investment for me and I look forward to BE extending those hours of fun and challenge still more.

Are these games perfect? No, not by a long shot. And I do look forward to seeing what Civ 6 brings us, down the road. But call me a sucker for potential if you wish, but I do think BE has the potential to keep me in giggles long enough to get my money's worth out of it, and then some.

 

[HecatesLover]

I want to know what the bonuses are for positive health. From MadDjinn's stream it looks to me like it is very much possible to maintain positive health. What are the bonuses? The only tooltip I've seen so far has been some output growth for 0 to +9. If we knew the positives we could make a better comparison. Remember losing a bonus is equal to taking a penalty.

 

[ggmoyang]

I want to know what the bonuses are for positive health. From MadDjinn's stream it looks to me like it is very much possible to maintain positive health. What are the bonuses? The only tooltip I've seen so far has been some output growth for 0 to +9. If we knew the positives we could make a better comparison. Remember losing a bonus is equal to taking a penalty.

+10 production and -50% intrigue at +10. +20 bonus is unknown.

 

[MadDjinn]

The costs and unit stats are fluctuating rapidly (as you would expect at this stage of development) and I'm trying to keep up with them, but it's hard to tell at times which numbers are current. I think the build MadDjinn is playing is actually older than the one Pete used on Thursday.

Assume Pete's numbers are the only correct ones.

Which sort of colonists did he bring again? Hoping it isn't artists. Seen too many LP's that pick Artists (mostly because they seem OP).

The chat asked for it. Granted, it's now off the list of choices for the next LP, meaning F-I has to go without it.

I kinda don't want a victorious advancing army to get crippled for having the insolence to win battles and take cities, though - that seems backwards.

I'd sooner see the "civilian" parts of your empire be negatively affected by low health - it just seems from what we've seen so far that low health doesn't penalise enough, and that trade routes are too good.

Combat penalties seems overly bad, I agree. What 'could' happen is a scaled increase in military production costs, maintenance (maybe), etc (or back to BNW's scaled % penalty for hammers and gold).

I would also love to see a newly occupied city (and especially razing ones) kick out rebel units every turn on a % basis until occupation is complete. Razed ones would need to kick out 1+ units and a % per pop. That would help slow a vast sweeping army from just chugging along. Perhaps making peace would slow the % chance down, giving the player/AI the option to continue for full war, but get lots of rebels, or make peace and get less rebels.

 

[gunnergoz]

(snip)
I would also love to see a newly occupied city (and especially razing ones) kick out rebel units every turn on a % basis until occupation is complete. Razed ones would need to kick out 1+ units and a % per pop. That would help slow a vast sweeping army from just chugging along. Perhaps making peace would slow the % chance down, giving the player/AI the option to continue for full war, but get lots of rebels, or make peace and get less rebels.

This sounds very realistic to me and I'd gladly see it incorporated. Would you see the rebels joining the opposition army (and thus controlled by the opposition player) or simply fighting under AI control against the invading faction? And what happens to them upon cessation of hostilities if they remain under AI control? Do they go off and found a Station? Firefly's Veteran Corps VA Hall?

 

[ggmoyang]

Now I have to fight rebels here too? Oh noes, we don't have harsh treatment!
jk, I like that idea. Not like random rebels from capital in civ V.

 

[Soffacet]

I think people have a different definition of easy than I do. I think the AI overextended itself which made him lucky so he was able to counterattack, but he not only had two cities taken (losing his entire airforce in the process) but he was one turn away from his first city founded getting burned to the ground. Now I agree that the AI should have stopped after taking two cities to make sure reinforcements came and the city successfully burned down, but I still think he hung on by the skin of his teeth from all appearances. And it's unclear how much he was set back by his losses (certainly, Brasilia had a far fringe tech relatively early because he stole it).

That being said, sending a trade route from each city to the capital is apparently quite strong (on the other hand, almost every minute he complained about lack of energy, which might have been remedied through that extra trade route). Plus, one thing I noticed is that things are balanced by providing a ton of useful things. Sure trade routes are really good, but there are also a lot of buildings you want to squeeze in instead, and lets crank out some explorers and get some expeditions, and oops, maybe I should have been building military units because they just declared war on me.

Regarding negative health, I agree with the thrust of what people are saying but I'm not sure I agree with the specifics. I don't think the game is designed where the ideal state is always being healthy. Healthiness is an ideal to shoot for but mild unhealthiness is not a problem. Health simply doesn't appear easy enough to justify positive health. The problem is there needs to be even greater penalties for higher negative unhealthiness. If you can compensate to live with -20 you can currently go as high as you want. Instead, add new penalties for -25, -30, etc. (for that matter, -15 as well). Although it might be more balanced in multiplayer. In a multiplayer game, if I see an unhealthy player going on a war of expansion, I'd put spies in his major cities and try and flip them.

If that ends up being true, then that is a vast departure from Civ5. Learning how to never go unhappy is the #1 most important thing that a Civ5 player can learn if they want to advance in difficulty level. Going negative is nearly always preventable, and is never advantageous or "acceptable."

I would be highly disappointed if unhealthiness in CivBE stays as toothless as it currently appears to be. IMO Civ5 had it done right, I'm surprised they didn't imitate that more closely. More negative than -10 should completely halt growth. -1% production and combat effectiveness for every point of unhealth. If there aren't enough health sources in the game to support that, then more should be added.

I would also love to see a newly occupied city (and especially razing ones) kick out rebel units every turn on a % basis until occupation is complete. Razed ones would need to kick out 1+ units and a % per pop. That would help slow a vast sweeping army from just chugging along. Perhaps making peace would slow the % chance down, giving the player/AI the option to continue for full war, but get lots of rebels, or make peace and get less rebels.

"Rebel units" of any kind have always been horridly clunky. Simulating resistance to occupation would be much better as city output penalties that gradually disappear.

 

[RonMar]

For me, I just hope the text and numbers are easier to read in the game than they are in the recorded/streamed displays. I can't read the numbers on the top line and not some of the text in the quests. My glasses are only a few months old.

Anyone else have this problem, or am I alone with this problem? I've tried to fiddle with my monitor settings, but to no appreciable improvement.

I'm running the video at full-screen.

Does this mean I need a new, bigger monitor?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This sounds very realistic to me and I'd gladly see it incorporated. Would you see the rebels joining the opposition army (and thus controlled by the opposition player) or simply fighting under AI control against the invading faction? And what happens to them upon cessation of hostilities if they remain under AI control? Do they go off and found a Station? Firefly's Veteran Corps VA Hall?

I've thought that rebels would be a great idea.
The way I would do it
Give rebel units their own AI
Assign rebel units to a specific city and a specific faction(whichever faction has the most influence in that city). They then try to capture that specific city and liberate it for the faction (even if the faction was at peace with the owners).
If the city gets completely razed, then rebel units go on barb type pillage offense v. the destroyer
If the city is captured by their faction, the rebel units join their factions side.

 

[AriochIV]

BTW LEV Tank can't cross rivers without penalty, not really levitating... (at least they can use roads)

Pretty sure that's just a glitch. Later in the same game his LEV Tanks were crossing canyons and rivers without penalty.

 

[ggmoyang]

Nanothermite (requires Nanotechnology)
1050 production
+4 energy
+30 city defense

 

[ggmoyang]

Question: Upgraded LEV Destroyer have base 10hp splash damage, and True upgrade have 15 splash damage as one of the upgrade options. These will stack and deal 25 splash damage, right?

 

[MadDjinn]

Question: Upgraded LEV Destroyer have base 10hp splash damage, and True upgrade have 15 splash damage as one of the upgrade options. These will stack and deal 25 splash damage, right?

That is usually the case - upgrades stack rather than replace.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

does that mean that 4 lev destroyers instantly kill units that are near eachother independant of that units combat strength?
that would be quite bad for balance. especially in sim turns.
4 shots and 3-6 units die no matter how strong they are.

i guess it is no worse then suicideing 5 xeno swarms into those lev destroyers. afterall 5x 20 damage still makes them instantly die. but it does make might quite weak with the 20% combat strength if there are attacks that ignore combat strength.

It also makes it impossible to attack a harmony player with supremacy 3 and harmony 10 when they have enough production. since they can just suicide there units into yours.
use scatter fighters to make an opening and have that xeno swarm do 20 damage each to 5 nearby units as they die.
Supremacy 3 makes players spam roads everywhere since they are free. the combat mobility it gives you is huge.

Suicideing xenoswarms is a sure fire way to take cities if you have the needed production since no matter the strength they do 20 damage on death. infinity strengh cities will fall like flies as will infinity strength units if the damage is truly flat.

I would strongly recomend that you put a combat strength value on death and on splash damage and not a flat damage value.

PS it does not seem to be that hard to stay healthy in civ BE and you can allways go prosperity or industry and build a few biowells. the +10 bonus is nice, and if the +20 bonus is a mirror of the -20 bonus then it can be quite good. +100% growth anyone or maybe +10% growth, science culture and energy.

madjinn in your next Lets play can you go really happy lategame and show us that +20 happy bonus? all you would need is 10 in prosperity and 8 in industry and a few biowells. or just do biowells, generators, supremacy and industry 8.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

does that mean that 4 lev destroyers instantly kill units that are near eachother independant of that units combat strength?
that would be quite bad for balance. especially in sim turns.
4 shots and 3-6 units die no matter how strong they are.

i guess it is no worse then suicideing 5 xeno swarms into those lev destroyers. afterall 5x 20 damage still makes them instantly die. but it does make might quite weak with the 20% combat strength if there are attacks that ignore combat strength.

It also makes it impossible to attack a harmony player with supremacy 3 and harmony 10 when they have enough production. since they can just suicide there units into yours.
use scatter fighters to make an opening and have that xeno swarm do 20 damage each to 5 nearby units as they die.
Supremacy 3 makes players spam roads everywhere since they are free. the combat mobility it gives you is huge.

Suicideing xenoswarms is a sure fire way to take cities if you have the needed production since no matter the strength they do 20 damage on death. infinty strengh cities will fall like flies as will infinity strength units if the damage is truly flat.

I would strongly recomend that you put a combat strength value on death and on splash damage and not a flat damage value.

Definitely agree there,
The only comparable thing in Civ V was the Citadel, and those were limited and immobile.

 

[MadDjinn]

4 Lev Destroyers = 28 floatstone. That's pretty implausible all by itself.

then you have to be at purity 16+ or 18 for the final upgrade.

Also keeping in mind that there are healing bonuses/etc etc in the game.

a per the evolved xeno swarm, they aren't banelings. You can't trigger them to explode whenever you want.

 

[Arkangelus]

To be honest, I was struggling a bit to see where the Lev Destroyers fitted with the tanks being ranged and the Battlesuits being the strong melee unit... but splash damage? Suddenly they look REALLY threatening, and for 7 floatstone they actually have a niche. I like.