You've told me many times that removal of doomstacking and changing the hexes are the exact reasons you think 5 sucks though.
We've gone through this song and dance like three or four times.
You've told me many times that removal of doomstacking and changing the hexes are the exact reasons you think 5 sucks though.
We've gone through this song and dance like three or four times.
Yeah vanilla was a rough fucking ride but once they got those expansions layered on things settled in. The larger strategic element I'd say is probably still better in 4 but the tactical part is INFINITELY better in 5.
and both of them have their lunch completely eaten by Vicky, CK, and EU.
and HOI, I guess
<NEW FIC!> Revolution #9: Somewhere out there, there's a universe in which your mistakes and failures never happened, and all you wished for is true. How hard would you fight to make that real?
[11:20:46 AM] GlowStiks: lucina is supes attractive
[12:40] Lace: lucina is amazing
[12:40] Neir: lucina is pretty much flawless
I don't miss doomstacks at all, so Civ5 felt like a really solid improvement to me once I'd gotten the expansions.
That yellow-bordered civ is quite multicultural.
don't quote me on this
Yeah but then you're at the mercy of autocalc which is even worse.
Autocalc is bad if you're facing full stacks of heavy infantry. Otherwise they're okay.
Paradox combat is fine for what it is because the rest of the game is infinitely more robust than anything Firaxis or CA has ever put out.
Proper opinions.
'Can' is a huge stretch, and even 'will' is likely taking it too far. Yes, Paradox has made big gains among the large-scale strategy community, but Civ is one of the franchises that has strong casual recognition and appeal. There are tonnes of players who only know about and care about Civ in this genre, and they (for the most part) rarely demand more from Firaxis. They care about stability, fun, and some gradual gameplay upgrades. Great depth and innovation aren't actually on the menu. Paradox's reach in that direction is still, I feel, fairly limited.
Beast's Lair: Useful Notes
(Lightweight | PDF)
Updated 01/01/15
If posts are off-topic, trolling, terrible or offensive, please allow me to do my job. Reporting keeps your forum healthy.
Seika moderates: modly clarifications, explanations, Q&A, and the British conspiracy to de-codify BL's constitution.
Democracy on Beast's Lair
Well yes if we take casuals into consideration then less does tend to become more.
Oh, I agree it is fine, but I'd def argue both historically (what a lot of people like to claim it is) and designwise it ends up being lacking because there's so many directions Paraducks tries to push it.
To argue that it is more detailed and that makes it great, is just hollow. I'd argue the combat system is relatively simple when you learn how it works in each of Paradox's games. And heck nevermind the bugs that plague its combat system (AA ground units in HoI are infamous for literally doing nothing or the infamous Fire stage bugs in EU just off the top of my head).
While I agree with this, I doubt its in the same tread.
Civ's design is very closed and is actually balanced so any Empire is mad fun no matter what you do, while in say Vicky or HoI they are very much not equal (though EU has been trying to make it 'BALANCED'). Hence why I would call it far more thought out and designed.
TW balance wise is also p interesting but I feel it flat as TW ultimately only wants you to conquer the world and doesn't care as much about trade. Also Rome II, Sengoku, and definitely Attila are moving along the lines of EU4 and just trying to BALANCE everything even when the fun of some things is that they are not balanced and unfairness is fun.
Can I shamelessly plug in that I OLEV March of the Eagle balance, especially in MP? Even if it combat wise it is a piece of shit where your only goal is to stack units with Guards and just enough cavalry and artillery to fill lines and spam Up the Guard tactics- strategic wise it is just amazing to watch/play a team deathmatch where your goal is to win before all your units die of attrition, while the other side only condition is to STAY AWAY FROM NAPOLEON AND ATTACK ANYTHING ELSE AS NAPOLEON WILL FUCK YOUR SHIT AND HE MOVES AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It makes things so stressful.
Isn't that the point of this convo though, that you claimed the direction of the people playing these kinds of games was moving toward grand strategy to get their fix as it was more detailed?
I don't think that is exactly true, while I would argue CK being the major exception, I do think there is a limit even if this is true. I mean despite me and Leo being die hard gsg fans for years we still wouldn't even touch War in the Pacific (well, I touched it, but I stopped after I realized I had no idea how to even disembark units).
Civ 5 had 50-60k players regularly at any time of day (peak times it was even higher) till like early 2015 while every single Paradox game combined was still averaged like 10-15k players at any time of day. Civ has a far better grasp on the strategy game community.
Last edited by Cruor; May 12th, 2016 at 05:38 PM.
The Hall of Selected Cruor Praise
I can't understand the insistence on making the Firaxis/Paradox comparison here unless you want to make it about Stellaris since it's actually 4x like Civ. Otherwise these games just play completely differently.
And if you want Better Civ there's Endless Legend anyway.