Speed of Civ IV, V, VI, VII... A descending trend?
- Thread starter Lazy sweeper
- Start date
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
The no dedicated end button in Civ VI has just procreated another bug....
On a 30+ civs gameplay, pantheons run out of slots, and I am stuck in the Pantheon
choice menu, which is empty, and the end button just stay on 'Pantheon'
without letting me end the turn...
I'm so angry... I'm going back to play civ IV...
On a 30+ civs gameplay, pantheons run out of slots, and I am stuck in the Pantheon
choice menu, which is empty, and the end button just stay on 'Pantheon'
without letting me end the turn...
I'm so angry... I'm going back to play civ IV...
No Pantheon available, no end turn bug...
I have already sent the ticket, this is the copy of the message sent to 2K... Unbelieveable... I knew this end turn civ VI thing, that stops you from ending a turn by pressing enter, and in general, THERE IS NO DEDICATED END TURN BUTTON, but a random button that change actions everytime, cycle...
forums.civfanatics.com
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Civ VI has no dedicated End button.... misleading you say???
The topic is not just on optimization. A M1 mac vs Playstation 5 vs PC thread. It's not everything about that.
It's about devs choices to give up the most useful shortcuts to fasten game turns,
like deafult key bindings, still present in Civ 3 and 4, then gradually disappearing with 5, and by 6 they are completely gone...
No end button Pantheon bug, 10 years in... this is no joke...
Last edited:
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Why then babylon has an 'Air superiority' agenda, then builds planes ( only civs basically to do it) and then do nothing with them?
Why there must be an 'Air superiority' agenda in the first place???
AI is not inherently poor, obviously, when you have a science OP civ like Babylon, with planes, and cities with their own defence (starting from civ 5)
why should the AI build units? Not for defence. Only for attacking another AI civ with inexistent units.
And never attacks the human player that has at least some basic defence units bc it is just not worth the effort.
Victory is much more simple to obtain other ways. Only when one human player get near some victory type, it starts doing some spying.
Playing Emperor, Babylon beefed with air units, 10 techs beyond me, and no matter what, it won't attack me.
AI is either too smart, or being dumbed down deliberately, bc micromechanics are now so much more important to the various
victory types, that military makes no sense. Of course is being dumbed down bc Babylon with its chariots can steamroll everyone on the map
and the game would end at turn 50. But that should be the norm.... every civ should steamroll its unique unit and try to conquest the stronger
player, in order to try to take the lead... but this NEVER happens in civ 6.... it's always the weaker to be attacked... bc, again, it makes sense
with current mechanics, to just try get more economics going...
To me AI is poorly designed, it's to that is inherently 'weak'...
If in Civ 3 or 4 a human do not build a strong defence force, it gets sweeped, playing warlord... that is the way... or it was...
And playing Tethurkan, 60+ civs mod in civ 3, turns would take ages at one point, before communism, bc of so many unique units...
my Athlon from 1999 was burning hot during those gameplays... thousand of units....
now AI do not build units basically, and yes, it's considerably faster bc of poor Ai... again, not saying Ai is 'stupid'... it's the game broken agenda tree that requires Ai to be 'micromanagement focused'....
Last edited:
Vandlys
King
Yes, misleading topic title I said. I never said anything about a 'dedicated end button' and I don't know where you got that from. The title reads "descending trend" but then the topic start reads that:
"Civ IV is the faster by a long shot
Civ V is the slowest
Civ VI is in the middle - without AI...
Civ VII will be???"
I don't see how that's descending if the last iteration was quicker than the one before.
You may be one of the first people to find the bug, I can't imagine almost anyone plays with 30 civs on the map - that sounds like an exercise in pain, at least to me
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,972
It’s not even a bug. The game was not designed to allow more than 12 civs, so you can’t use mods that break those parameters then complain the game is bugged.
By the way, you can force end turn with Shift + Enter, solving the problem.
By the way, you can force end turn with Shift + Enter, solving the problem.
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Tethurkhan test of time is revolting in its tume in pain.
If you haven't played Tethurkhan with Tibet, you obviously can not understand me.
I hope you do, otherwise you'd have missed the best Huge Earth instalment in all of civ history...
I am not aware of using any mod that could break the game...
Large map, select 30 playable civs, that's it... does Vanilla cap playable civs to max 12???
Honestly this is ridiculous... how Huge Earth scenario was supposed to work then???
What Civ VII upper limit will go for civs in a game? 10?
Has this anything to do with capping the game from having to deal with too much stuff, that would completely stop the game to being played at all?
Apple M4 is about to come out, and there's concerns about a platform not being able to deliver?
Sure Nintendo Swith would explode, but why a console should have a full fledged PC/Mac game?
It doesnt' even have a mouse...
I own civilization revolution for the DS, and I loved it, and still play it sometimes on the go...
Civ VI should have been named Civ Revolution II, not Civ VI....
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Have you ever tried to conquer the world sa Rome in Tethurkhan test of time? Civ III, second 'dlc' pack. Steam has no assets for it.You may be one of the first people to find the bug, I can't imagine almost anyone plays with 30 civs on the map - that sounds like an exercise in pain, at least to me
It one of the most difficult stuff you can imagine... typical gameplay would take weeks, not days... half an hour for a turn was normal... (on 486, now it's a little better thankfully
I once achieved a domination victory with Rome, and the clash with China was the most Epic battle I ever had in any civ I can remember...
Forget to conquest Tibet untill you have Marines or Bombers, or you are playing with Mongols or China...
But first you have to get outside Italian peninsula, try to get some steppe horses before anyone else, and try build the Roman Empire...
Tibetan warrior monks pikemans are insane.
TeT has 31 civs by default, with real start locations.
If you are interested in trying it, here's the download page
TETurkhan Test of Time (Map & Mod)
For those of you who are just after the map and not the mod - here is a list of world maps I have completed for Civ (all Conquests compatible): Just Maps TETurkhan - The Lost World (World Map 256x256) http://www.civfanatics.net/~teturkhan/downloads/TETurkhan - The Lost World (World Map...
forums.civfanatics.com
This is a play of mine with Rome, and even if I'm pretty strong, everyone is going to declare war on me in a few turn...
this what I call an intensive gameplay....
Last edited:
Vandlys
King
Do I understand you correctly? Are you asking how a mod was supposed to work if the vanilla game sets limits?
I mean, I guess the answer is simply "It wasn't".
As for the pantheon "bug" (which, as @pokiehl rightly stated cannot be called a bug since it's a mod), there are other mods to circumvent this problem (again, which is a problem made by a mod, not the game itself).
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,187
His point of view is defendable, since some people just love to play huge Earth maps with a lot of civs in it. Even without huge Earth maps, the limit of 12 civs (even if i think it is higher, by adding civs with the "+" button bottom) seems pretty harsh. Whether it is called a bug or not is somewhat irrelevant to me, just rhetorical or as to underline more the harshness of the limit of number of civs.
Limits exist for reasons we have no way of guessing at. You can call it harsh, I can call it not harsh, and everyone can go over in circles over their own feelings about such a limit. Personally, being frustrated at a limit is more understandable than blaming the developers for an issue that only occurs when using mods. That's not really what I'd consider "defendable" (except in the technical sense that everyone has a go online
).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_Revolution_2
The problem is Civ Revolution 2 already exists.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,187
Thing is, mods are vastly a (if not "the") part of the experience, at least on PC. So one can blame developers as it can do for not releasing the DLL.
Then you can easily replace the "2" by "3", not a big deal.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,972
Mod users a tiny minority of all players, including on PC.Thing is, mods are vastly a (if not "the") part of the experience, at least on PC. So one can blame developers as it can do for not releasing the DLL.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,187
How do you know ? (and yes, only on PC or whatever moddable version)
Even if we take the claim about mods to be true (and while imo people tend to oversell the value considering how widespread and popular - and now multi-platform - the game is, I personally think they're a very valuable part of each game) . . . seguing into one more DLL discussion is a whole other thing.Thing is, mods are vastly a (if not "the") part of the experience, at least on PC. So one can blame developers as it can do for not releasing the DLL.
You can accept or disagree with any reason given, but the reality is the reason will have existed. The cap itself will likely have had nothing to do with providing the DLL, or providing modding support. And the core issue - the original point - was a user's choice to use mods, have something in the game's UI go wonky, and then blame developers who didn't even make the mod in the first place.
Feels like I'm going in circles a bit
To try and take this back to the topic a bit, it's the difference between being frustrated at the speed it can take for the AI to do stuff / the game's lategame performance (which is still worlds above V, in my experience), and criticising the developers because I deleted a file and the AI no longer works. Even if the root cause is my frustration, I still made the choice to delete a file (not that that'd work anymore, it'd probably just crash the game haha. Used to be a thing when games were simpler).
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,187
Which might be well over any feasability consideration...
The modder wouldn't have any interest to do a mod that cannot work either. He/she probably recommended to install another mod with more pantheons or something like that like specified earlier.
It's a totally different thing.
And by the way, the true "unmodded" limit in huge maps is 19.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,972
No it’s not. The limit is and always has been 12.
shrugs
Agree to disagree! I certainly wouldn't want players blaming Firaxis because my BE mod isn't compatible with the Rising Tide expansion. What modders implement, and what players choose to use, is a personal decision. I'd rather not have it co-opted into "Firaxis bad". Valid criticism can exist alongside the choice to supplement gameplay with mods.
