Shipyards give hammers equal to the adjacency bonus of the harbor. Including boosts from cards and Reyna (though I'm not sure the Governors exist on Switch?) So it's relatively easy to get 16 hammers out of one harbor if you build the city on the coast (on Steam).
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
And okay I think that makes more sense to my brain. The whole "give" language was messing me up I think. Like, a theater district next to a campus should be like "oh the school got a drama department, so they're more cultured now" was kinda how I was thinking.
I knew to put campuses next to mountains, I did not know to also out holy sites next to them. That is very useful.
In people's experience, is the City Center/Harbor adjacency worth the coastal settle? Or is it better to settle just off coast and just, for instance, plan your commercial hub for the tile in between? I feel like coastal cities tend to have lower production; or does that problem even out with enough population?
The way I think of it is more like "Oh, the University and the Museum are right next to each other, so it's more convenient for people to visit both in the same trip, which in turns makes them both a little more efficient."
If you can get a City Center/Harbor/Commercial Hub triangle on a coastal river, it'll give you a minimum of +8 gold because of the way adjacency stacks. The Harbor will get +2 from the City Center and +1 from being adjacent to two districts. The Commercial Hub will get +2 from being on a river, +2 from the Harbor, and +1 from being adjacent to two districts. Any sea resources you can get your harbor next to are just gravy after that.
Otherwise, don't stress too much over that +2 gold. Not only can you still build a Commercial Hub on the tile in between, but settling one tile away from the ocean can give you an opportunity to build a Canal district, which can help you get a better Industrial Zone, so it all evens out.
0
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
Spain good now. Getting a builder and better district production for new cities is chef's kiss and it's nice to have a big incentive to explore and building commercial hubs and harbors to get more juiced trade routes. The issue is balancing this with your need to generate faith so Voidsingers feel quite important.
Only time I played Spain in vanilla I spawned on a continental divide. Was pretty great.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
There are a lot of incentives for it I can think of off the top of my head:
Playing wide and having a gold generation specialized city (wide cities normally only get 2-3 districts).
Put Reyna and her harbormaster promotion into the city
Aiming for classical and medieval golden eras for Free inquiry so that the gold generation also gives equal (and huge at that time of the game) science generation
Civs that gain bonuses for settling on coastline, like Australia
Wanting the Eureka for sailing and celestial navigation
Owls of Minerva on top of it would get two traders for that city eventually
So at the start of the game you might spot a Coastal city spot with a river and two resources nearby. Your second (or even first if really close with nearby nice tiles) settler would then settle there for the sailing eureka, then have a builder work the sea tiles for the growth and the eureka to celestial navigation. That city then only cares about getting the triangle, and later getting Reyna setup.
In Gathering Storm it's also worth +2 housing from the lighthouse for the harbor to be adjacent to the city center.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
+2
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
In Gathering Storm it's also worth +2 housing from the lighthouse for the harbor to be adjacent to the city center.
This is the big reason for coastal cities, imo. The lighthouse is possibly the single most powerful building in the game: Buffs your coast tiles, two housing, trade route capacity, AND the exp buff for ships as gravy on top.
There's no doubt that the average coastal city requires more work to get productive than inland cities; shipyards don't come early and they don't come cheap, versus an inland city just building eighty mines and getting a million production that way. But I just hate building commercial hubs so much when I could be building lighthouses instead; markets are much worse, and banks/stock exchanges are basically worthless for how much production they take to put out for a measly GPT increase at those stages of the game. (Exceptions obviously exist for special hubs/markets—just did an economic suzerain Jadwiga game with lots of city state trading to get tons of production from their unique market.)
But because coastal cities basically require you to build their harbor as their first district (for that lighthouse housing), I find that I end up making tons of gold with coastal empires which can balance out the production deficiencies. It won't be long after I unlock shipyards that I can buy one every 2-3 turns because hitting 3-400 GPT in the midgame is standard.
But yeah, in general (among the streamers I've been watching lately, I'm just now getting into the civ community at large) the "meta" seems to mostly be coastal cities are suboptimal because they can hold less mines and districts overalls. With the exception of if you're on a relatively small island, in which case coastal settling maximizes the number of cities you can found, which is always going to be important in a game as wide-heavy as Civ 6 is. But if you're playing single player vs. AI, the meta doesn't really matter unless you're really struggling with finding that edge and need a boost.
Edit: That said, I'd really recommend against the harbor/city center/commercial hub triangle unless you're playing secret societies as Owls, who have a way to give you trade routes from both harbors and hubs in the same city. Otherwise the commercial hub in that situation is basically just a waste of a district slot, build a campus or theatre square instead to get more valuable yields.
Is absolutely wonderful when you want to plan out your industrial zones, wonders, and such.
edit: the better you get at the game, the fewer pins you probably need.
Although I have a friend I play with that as he gets better, he starts adding more pins earlier. SOB takes like 15 mins planning 5+ cities worth of pins and districts on turn 5-10 when we all know strategic resources are going to start ruining those plans.
Seriously, this mod is a freaking life saver when you're trying to plan an entire empire on turn 30 to beat the AI to forward settling on Deity.
Also you can plan around the early strategics because they won't spawn on tiles with other features (marsh, jungle, forest). Iron will only ever spawn on hill, Horses on grassland and plains, Niter on any "flat" tile, and everything else critical district wise should will likely be placed before coal (which can spawn on woods tiles) shows.
I usually just try to delay Niter until all my must have infrastructure put down if I'm worried about it killing an important district spot. You can also place districts right when you get the population to lock in the ever rising production cost then come back to them later for that same cost. Doin so DOES kill the tile yields though, so beware.
Early Maui lets you scope strategic resources, by the way. He can't add to tiles with hidden strategics.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
+1
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
Quite easy religious victory with Spain - when you have enough Missions and your cities are "done" you can spam Holy Site prayers and just churn out missionaries and apostles from your cities with a Mosque. Now it's time to try a Science and then a Diplo victory.
Absalon on
0
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
I highly recommend mods for choppable strategics/luxuries and removable districts, just for QoL of not being screwed out of a great district by revealing something or saving a reload when you misclick placing one down.
I highly recommend mods for choppable strategics/luxuries and removable districts, just for QoL of not being screwed out of a great district by revealing something or saving a reload when you misclick placing one down.
Removable districts is amazing, I love that mod. Great when you capture an enemy city too, you can fix their fuckups.
+2
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
It’s interesting to see people say Commercial districts are largely a waste in cities with Harbors
On some level I probably knew it but my habit has always been to max out districts in my cities and then wondering why I’m still struggling to make gold in the later stages of the game.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I really should have waited and put my government center/Magnus in the second continent city with Spain. But these trade routes are silly.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Is there any way to make a city completely stop growing?
I keep hitting a population cap based on housing and/or amenities (mostly amenities), but even when I tell the city to NOT prioritize food, it still grows a bit.
So eventually, all my cities are unhappy.
Is there anything I can do about this?
Is there any way to make a city completely stop growing?
I keep hitting a population cap based on housing and/or amenities (mostly amenities), but even when I tell the city to NOT prioritize food, it still grows a bit.
So eventually, all my cities are unhappy.
Is there anything I can do about this?
If you click on a city's name and then the middle of the 5 buttons in the first screenshot, you can manage the specific tiles your citizens are working:
Clicking a tile's citizen icon will "lock" a citizen to that tile. It looks like from the first screenshot you can also tell a city to ignore food.
All that said I don't think there's any way to just straight stop growing completely at all.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
I wonder if Humankind will compel the initiation of development of Civ 7, because right now I feel as if the game is at an excellent state with some balancing problems (map- and start-dependent civs, obvious S- and C-tiers overall, limited AI) and I would be happy to see more updates and civs instead. Maybe the next game will be Alpha Centauri instead.
I've never liked any game from that developer. But we're just due for a new one. ~5 years.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I just finished downloading the opendev version after leaving twitch streaming in the background for 3 hours. I'm hoping humankind is a nice alternative to civ that encourages more meandering as opposed to the hyper-focus on win condition you need to be in order to beat C6 on deity.
0
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Is there any way to make a city completely stop growing?
I keep hitting a population cap based on housing and/or amenities (mostly amenities), but even when I tell the city to NOT prioritize food, it still grows a bit.
So eventually, all my cities are unhappy.
Is there anything I can do about this?
Bulldoze farms and don’t make trade routes that produce food?
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
0
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Is there any way to make a city completely stop growing?
I keep hitting a population cap based on housing and/or amenities (mostly amenities), but even when I tell the city to NOT prioritize food, it still grows a bit.
So eventually, all my cities are unhappy.
Is there anything I can do about this?
If you click on a city's name and then the middle of the 5 buttons in the first screenshot, you can manage the specific tiles your citizens are working:
Clicking a tile's citizen icon will "lock" a citizen to that tile. It looks like from the first screenshot you can also tell a city to ignore food.
All that said I don't think there's any way to just straight stop growing completely at all.
Yeah, there’s no “stop growing” button but with tile and citizen management you can get close to zero growth. Like, hundreds of turns to grow or shrink.
Just remember that microscopic growth is better than microscopic loss, if only because you will get constant warnings about losing pop even if it’s in three hundred turns.
Also, given that you have amenity issues caused by the excess growth remember that if you do fix the amenity situation, you’ll need to go back in and reshuffle the tiles again because having good amenities increases yields, including food.
Finally in case you’re not aware, a city needs two food per population to feed itself; anything over that is what goes into growth, so you can theoretically get exactly zero growth, but there’s dozens of situational/policy/religious/other bonuses and penalties that make it quite rare to have an integer food amount in a city once you’ve developed much past your second district.
I've never liked any game from that developer. But we're just due for a new one. ~5 years.
Really? Endless Legend is still solidly my favorite 4X, even if I've played more Civ VI at this point. Endless Space 2 is basically just worse Stellaris though, that's true, and honestly the Humankind streams I've been watching don't paint it in a great light. Basically Legend again but with less personality because it's not these cool fantasy civs.
Just remember that microscopic growth is better than microscopic loss, if only because you will get constant warnings about losing pop even if it’s in three hundred turns.
For this reason, I usually prefer to tell my cities to prioritize every yield except food instead of telling them to ignore food. That way, the city will still work your highest food tiles, but only after it's already working your highest yield tiles of everything other than food.
0
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
It's weird there's no explicit avoid growth button. Didn't both 4 and 5 have that?
Part of the reason Civ has dominated the 4X genre for so long is that it understands infrastructure-building should be deep and complex while warfare should be shallow and simple.
Most other 4X games, including Amplitude's, take the reverse approach. When a 4X game starts asking me to design my own custom units, that's usually the point where I bounce off of it.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I just finished downloading the opendev version after leaving twitch streaming in the background for 3 hours. I'm hoping humankind is a nice alternative to civ that encourages more meandering as opposed to the hyper-focus on win condition you need to be in order to beat C6 on deity.
Any chance you'd enjoy Civ more on a different difficulty? Personally part of the reason I always just play Settler is that I don't particularly like a challenging game experience so actually can meander around the tech/civ trees and that sort of thing.
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
edited May 2021
Endless Legend's combat is definitely daunting at first, but it's deceptively simple. You can get by with exactly two types of units:
1. High-initiative cavalry. If there's an enemy that could hit your ranged units, hit them first to take their turn away.
2. Ranged units that you either move in behind the cavalry with, or just kite and shoot continuously. Does a bulk of the damage.
If you don't have access to a good cavalry unit (minor factions have a few good options) then a wall of tanky infantry units can also work. If you want to get spicy with support units, they definitely have their uses but aren't required by any means.
Unit design is definitely a HUGE downfall of both Endless Space and Stellaris, in that it's super unintuitive and from what I've heard largely doesn't matter? In Legend it's at least pretty easy to see This One Gives Bigger Number, you basically just always assign the best armor and weapons you have available that you can afford to produce. You only really need to update designs when you unlock better iron/dust gear, or when you unlock tier 2 of the precious metal gear.
I viscerally disagree that Civ's combat is better because it's simpler; Civ combat is legitimately one of the worst mechanics in the industry because the hex-based movement of 5 and 6 make managing even a small army nightmarishly tedious. It's not fun! It's horrid! Legend solves the stacking problem of 4 by expanding to a cutaway battlefield with individual units, and solves the overworld navigation problems of 5 and 6 by stacking in the overworld. It's a massive improvement.
I do think Humankind is on to something with the way it handles victory conditions, and I doubt something like that would be too difficult to implement in a civ game. Instead of having 5 types of dominance that are all totally unrelated to each other, victory could be achieved by meeting specific thresholds in multiple dominance types. For example, you win the game when you either achieve two types of dominance completely, or get two-thirds of of the way through three dominance types, or halfway through four, or two-fifths of the way through all five.
So, for example, any of the following would result in victory in a game with eight players on standard speed:
Reach the exoplanet and have 20 Diplomatic Dominance Points.
Launch the exoplanet expedition, have 14 Diplomatic Dominance Points, and own 6 original capitals.
Establish a martian colony, have 10 Diplomatic Dominance Points, own 4 original capitals, and be culturally dominant over 4 players.
Land a human on the moon, have 8 Diplomatic Dominance Points, own 4 original capitals, be culturally dominant over 4 players, and make your founded religion the majority in 4 player's cities.
Unit design is definitely a HUGE downfall of both Endless Space and Stellaris, in that it's super unintuitive and from what I've heard largely doesn't matter? In Legend it's at least pretty easy to see This One Gives Bigger Number, you basically just always assign the best armor and weapons you have available that you can afford to produce. You only really need to update designs when you unlock better iron/dust gear, or when you unlock tier 2 of the precious metal gear.
.
In stellaris it matters and it's super untuirtive. Last i played you could win and win hard for a lot of the game using frigate swarms, to the point my late game armies were basically Frigate swarms + seprate long range battleship fleets with the odd super battleship. But the way the game abstracted stuff out to a fleet strength score caused all sorts of problems, War exhaustion was non-intuive, it was just a mess. (Like i could "Loose" fights because i lost a lot of frigates, despite the fact i had survivors and the enemies' army was entirely routed - and econically, Frigates, even tooled out top of hte line frigates cost peanuts to make and built fast)
There was a whole rock paper scissors thing going on, but you could actually tell if it was working, and you'd miss things like the fact your fleets movement was limited to that of the slowest member... hence why i'd have seprate frigate and battleship fleets, so that frigates could get there soonest, lock shit down, and then the battleships could drop in and pound things.
I viscerally disagree that Civ's combat is better because it's simpler; Civ combat is legitimately one of the worst mechanics in the industry because the hex-based movement of 5 and 6 make managing even a small army nightmarishly tedious.
No no, you misunderstand. I'm not saying Civ's combat is better than Endless Legend's combat. I'm saying the combat in both games, and 4X games in general, is utter trash. But Civ is a better game because it focuses all its complexity into the parts of the game that aren't combat. Too many 4X games from smaller studios try to fix the combat problem, but it always results in their games having the wrong priorities. The thing that sets 4Xs apart from the rest of the strategy genre are the first three X's, and those should be the stars, while the last X should be treated as an afterthought. Firaxis seems to understand this well.
Also, Honestly, the exterimate angle is increasingly more uncomfortable as we think about the colonial legacy of our cultures and the ilk - Not that the first three dont have issues, but the exterminate one really sticks out.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Terribly easy King difficulty science victory with Joao on Archipelago. I had so many great writers and artists from my culture districts I had to keep them sleeping to avoid a tourism victory.
0
AuralynxDarkness is a perspectiveWatching the ego workRegistered Userregular
Also, Honestly, the exterimate angle is increasingly more uncomfortable as we think about the colonial legacy of our cultures and the ilk - Not that the first three dont have issues, but the exterminate one really sticks out.
No, it's not.
Not because of the real-world effects, consequences, and ugliness you're alluding to, but because we are not required to be moral actors within video games.
If anything, the success more-modern 4x games are having in creating penalties and gameplay effects around the bad things we do in them is an improvement.
Also, Honestly, the exterimate angle is increasingly more uncomfortable as we think about the colonial legacy of our cultures and the ilk - Not that the first three dont have issues, but the exterminate one really sticks out.
No, it's not.
Not because of the real-world effects, consequences, and ugliness you're alluding to, but because we are not required to be moral actors within video games.
If anything, the success more-modern 4x games are having in creating penalties and gameplay effects around the bad things we do in them is an improvement.
It's cool that you know @The Zombie Penguin feelings better than they do. I'll say I am a bit uncomfortable with these topics coming up in my game time.
I'll agree we do not have an obligation to be moral actors inside fantasy recreation activities. It still doesn't mean I want to play out those immoral activities. A game that focuses heavily on those activities is one I am less likely to purchase/play.
Also, Honestly, the exterimate angle is increasingly more uncomfortable as we think about the colonial legacy of our cultures and the ilk - Not that the first three dont have issues, but the exterminate one really sticks out.
No, it's not.
Not because of the real-world effects, consequences, and ugliness you're alluding to, but because we are not required to be moral actors within video games.
If anything, the success more-modern 4x games are having in creating penalties and gameplay effects around the bad things we do in them is an improvement.
It's cool that you know "The Zombie Penguin" feelings better than they do. I'll say I am a bit uncomfortable with these topics coming up in my game time.
I'll agree we do not have an obligation to be moral actors inside fantasy recreation activities. It still doesn't mean I want to play out those immoral activities. A game that focuses heavily on those activities is one I am less likely to purchase/play.
Come on; I'm not claiming to know anyone else's feelings. If anything, my thoughts re: the "increasingly uncomfortable" observation are:
As more consequences accumulate around immoral behavior in games, their inclusion as an option becomes less uncomfortable, because the game itself censures you.
The "exterminate" element should always have been some degree of uncomfortable. It's not any more or less out of place in the genre.
Posts
The way I think of it is more like "Oh, the University and the Museum are right next to each other, so it's more convenient for people to visit both in the same trip, which in turns makes them both a little more efficient."
If you can get a City Center/Harbor/Commercial Hub triangle on a coastal river, it'll give you a minimum of +8 gold because of the way adjacency stacks. The Harbor will get +2 from the City Center and +1 from being adjacent to two districts. The Commercial Hub will get +2 from being on a river, +2 from the Harbor, and +1 from being adjacent to two districts. Any sea resources you can get your harbor next to are just gravy after that.
Otherwise, don't stress too much over that +2 gold. Not only can you still build a Commercial Hub on the tile in between, but settling one tile away from the ocean can give you an opportunity to build a Canal district, which can help you get a better Industrial Zone, so it all evens out.
The reworked Spain has been given a start bias for Geothermal Fissures to increase the odds of this happening.
Playing wide and having a gold generation specialized city (wide cities normally only get 2-3 districts).
Put Reyna and her harbormaster promotion into the city
Aiming for classical and medieval golden eras for Free inquiry so that the gold generation also gives equal (and huge at that time of the game) science generation
Civs that gain bonuses for settling on coastline, like Australia
Wanting the Eureka for sailing and celestial navigation
Owls of Minerva on top of it would get two traders for that city eventually
So at the start of the game you might spot a Coastal city spot with a river and two resources nearby. Your second (or even first if really close with nearby nice tiles) settler would then settle there for the sailing eureka, then have a builder work the sea tiles for the growth and the eureka to celestial navigation. That city then only cares about getting the triangle, and later getting Reyna setup.
This is the big reason for coastal cities, imo. The lighthouse is possibly the single most powerful building in the game: Buffs your coast tiles, two housing, trade route capacity, AND the exp buff for ships as gravy on top.
There's no doubt that the average coastal city requires more work to get productive than inland cities; shipyards don't come early and they don't come cheap, versus an inland city just building eighty mines and getting a million production that way. But I just hate building commercial hubs so much when I could be building lighthouses instead; markets are much worse, and banks/stock exchanges are basically worthless for how much production they take to put out for a measly GPT increase at those stages of the game. (Exceptions obviously exist for special hubs/markets—just did an economic suzerain Jadwiga game with lots of city state trading to get tons of production from their unique market.)
But because coastal cities basically require you to build their harbor as their first district (for that lighthouse housing), I find that I end up making tons of gold with coastal empires which can balance out the production deficiencies. It won't be long after I unlock shipyards that I can buy one every 2-3 turns because hitting 3-400 GPT in the midgame is standard.
But yeah, in general (among the streamers I've been watching lately, I'm just now getting into the civ community at large) the "meta" seems to mostly be coastal cities are suboptimal because they can hold less mines and districts overalls. With the exception of if you're on a relatively small island, in which case coastal settling maximizes the number of cities you can found, which is always going to be important in a game as wide-heavy as Civ 6 is. But if you're playing single player vs. AI, the meta doesn't really matter unless you're really struggling with finding that edge and need a boost.
Edit: That said, I'd really recommend against the harbor/city center/commercial hub triangle unless you're playing secret societies as Owls, who have a way to give you trade routes from both harbors and hubs in the same city. Otherwise the commercial hub in that situation is basically just a waste of a district slot, build a campus or theatre square instead to get more valuable yields.
Seriously, this mod is a freaking life saver when you're trying to plan an entire empire on turn 30 to beat the AI to forward settling on Deity.
Also you can plan around the early strategics because they won't spawn on tiles with other features (marsh, jungle, forest). Iron will only ever spawn on hill, Horses on grassland and plains, Niter on any "flat" tile, and everything else critical district wise should will likely be placed before coal (which can spawn on woods tiles) shows.
I usually just try to delay Niter until all my must have infrastructure put down if I'm worried about it killing an important district spot. You can also place districts right when you get the population to lock in the ever rising production cost then come back to them later for that same cost. Doin so DOES kill the tile yields though, so beware.
Removable districts is amazing, I love that mod. Great when you capture an enemy city too, you can fix their fuckups.
On some level I probably knew it but my habit has always been to max out districts in my cities and then wondering why I’m still struggling to make gold in the later stages of the game.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I keep hitting a population cap based on housing and/or amenities (mostly amenities), but even when I tell the city to NOT prioritize food, it still grows a bit.
So eventually, all my cities are unhappy.
Is there anything I can do about this?
If you click on a city's name and then the middle of the 5 buttons in the first screenshot, you can manage the specific tiles your citizens are working:
Clicking a tile's citizen icon will "lock" a citizen to that tile. It looks like from the first screenshot you can also tell a city to ignore food.
All that said I don't think there's any way to just straight stop growing completely at all.
Bulldoze farms and don’t make trade routes that produce food?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yeah, there’s no “stop growing” button but with tile and citizen management you can get close to zero growth. Like, hundreds of turns to grow or shrink.
Just remember that microscopic growth is better than microscopic loss, if only because you will get constant warnings about losing pop even if it’s in three hundred turns.
Also, given that you have amenity issues caused by the excess growth remember that if you do fix the amenity situation, you’ll need to go back in and reshuffle the tiles again because having good amenities increases yields, including food.
Finally in case you’re not aware, a city needs two food per population to feed itself; anything over that is what goes into growth, so you can theoretically get exactly zero growth, but there’s dozens of situational/policy/religious/other bonuses and penalties that make it quite rare to have an integer food amount in a city once you’ve developed much past your second district.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Really? Endless Legend is still solidly my favorite 4X, even if I've played more Civ VI at this point. Endless Space 2 is basically just worse Stellaris though, that's true, and honestly the Humankind streams I've been watching don't paint it in a great light. Basically Legend again but with less personality because it's not these cool fantasy civs.
For this reason, I usually prefer to tell my cities to prioritize every yield except food instead of telling them to ignore food. That way, the city will still work your highest food tiles, but only after it's already working your highest yield tiles of everything other than food.
Most other 4X games, including Amplitude's, take the reverse approach. When a 4X game starts asking me to design my own custom units, that's usually the point where I bounce off of it.
Any chance you'd enjoy Civ more on a different difficulty? Personally part of the reason I always just play Settler is that I don't particularly like a challenging game experience so actually can meander around the tech/civ trees and that sort of thing.
1. High-initiative cavalry. If there's an enemy that could hit your ranged units, hit them first to take their turn away.
2. Ranged units that you either move in behind the cavalry with, or just kite and shoot continuously. Does a bulk of the damage.
If you don't have access to a good cavalry unit (minor factions have a few good options) then a wall of tanky infantry units can also work. If you want to get spicy with support units, they definitely have their uses but aren't required by any means.
Unit design is definitely a HUGE downfall of both Endless Space and Stellaris, in that it's super unintuitive and from what I've heard largely doesn't matter? In Legend it's at least pretty easy to see This One Gives Bigger Number, you basically just always assign the best armor and weapons you have available that you can afford to produce. You only really need to update designs when you unlock better iron/dust gear, or when you unlock tier 2 of the precious metal gear.
I viscerally disagree that Civ's combat is better because it's simpler; Civ combat is legitimately one of the worst mechanics in the industry because the hex-based movement of 5 and 6 make managing even a small army nightmarishly tedious. It's not fun! It's horrid! Legend solves the stacking problem of 4 by expanding to a cutaway battlefield with individual units, and solves the overworld navigation problems of 5 and 6 by stacking in the overworld. It's a massive improvement.
So, for example, any of the following would result in victory in a game with eight players on standard speed:
In stellaris it matters and it's super untuirtive. Last i played you could win and win hard for a lot of the game using frigate swarms, to the point my late game armies were basically Frigate swarms + seprate long range battleship fleets with the odd super battleship. But the way the game abstracted stuff out to a fleet strength score caused all sorts of problems, War exhaustion was non-intuive, it was just a mess. (Like i could "Loose" fights because i lost a lot of frigates, despite the fact i had survivors and the enemies' army was entirely routed - and econically, Frigates, even tooled out top of hte line frigates cost peanuts to make and built fast)
There was a whole rock paper scissors thing going on, but you could actually tell if it was working, and you'd miss things like the fact your fleets movement was limited to that of the slowest member... hence why i'd have seprate frigate and battleship fleets, so that frigates could get there soonest, lock shit down, and then the battleships could drop in and pound things.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
No no, you misunderstand. I'm not saying Civ's combat is better than Endless Legend's combat. I'm saying the combat in both games, and 4X games in general, is utter trash. But Civ is a better game because it focuses all its complexity into the parts of the game that aren't combat. Too many 4X games from smaller studios try to fix the combat problem, but it always results in their games having the wrong priorities. The thing that sets 4Xs apart from the rest of the strategy genre are the first three X's, and those should be the stars, while the last X should be treated as an afterthought. Firaxis seems to understand this well.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
No, it's not.
Not because of the real-world effects, consequences, and ugliness you're alluding to, but because we are not required to be moral actors within video games.
If anything, the success more-modern 4x games are having in creating penalties and gameplay effects around the bad things we do in them is an improvement.
It's cool that you know @The Zombie Penguin feelings better than they do. I'll say I am a bit uncomfortable with these topics coming up in my game time.
I'll agree we do not have an obligation to be moral actors inside fantasy recreation activities. It still doesn't mean I want to play out those immoral activities. A game that focuses heavily on those activities is one I am less likely to purchase/play.
Come on; I'm not claiming to know anyone else's feelings. If anything, my thoughts re: the "increasingly uncomfortable" observation are: