Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lynata wrote:
Aliens are also cool. They look scary at first due to their numbers, but my troopers just gunned them down like the bugs they are. I think I'm in a sort of "cold war" with them right now as the ecosystem doesn't seem to be actively fighting me anymore as long as I don't venture out of my currently claimed territory. There was some fierce fighting where several waves of alien creatures hurled themselves against a forward outpost, but gun batteries and missile crawlers held them back with little effort. I didn't pursue them, just held my ground, and it seems they have now lost interest in attacking me, even when standing in a hex right next to my army (which has occupied a strategic hotspot just outside the settlement's perimeter fence). They still attack me further away from the border, though.
I'm not sure if this is because it's another nest/continent, or perhaps because the aliens react to how many of my units they are facing ...

Yeah, your early troops are fully capable of taking the aliens one on one. The problem, of course, is the fact that the aliens like to show up in large numbers. So you've either got to have enough troops to overrun them quickly, or engage in hit and run attacks as you wipe out one unit and then pull your own units back to heal up. There is an exception, however. I had a Siege Worm turn up early on, and the combat preview showed that if I attacked, my Combat Rover would have been wiped out in one hit while doing negligible damage in exchange. Fortunately, the worm mysteriously disappeared without my having to deal with it (it might have been dealt with by the new nearby Pan-Asian outpost).

Also, the comments above don't apply to the marine (as in water creatures, not soldiers on ships) life forms.

The quest system is also a cool addition in that it allows you to refine your shaping of the colony, almost like a bit of roleplaying. That being said, It almost feels as if quest decisions are popping up a little too often, becoming a little too prominent for traditional Civ gameplay. If they would have scaled it back a bit and you don't see every single quest on your first playthrough, this aspect of the game would probably offer more replay value than it does now. Still, it's a nice touch.

New A/B choice quests seem to get triggered whenever you build a building for the first time. The more elaborate quests are interesting, though potentially problematic. I started one quest, and after completing the first couple of steps, I was told that I needed to build a Petrochemical Plant in my capitol city. The problem is, Petrochemical Plants require a Petrochemical resource within the city limits, and there aren't any. So I can't continue the quest line.

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/1407

The North American sponser is ARC. According to the fluff, ARC is a massive corporation that demonstrated its competence by performing an incredible feat of reconstruction engineering in the Central US.

ARC's Sponsor Bonus is a boost to your espionage.

Er... what?

my laptop really isn't good at rendering the new graphics

That sucks. Have you updated your graphics card drivers?

Eumerin wrote:The North American sponser is ARC. According to the fluff, ARC is a massive corporation that demonstrated its competence by performing an incredible feat of reconstruction engineering in the Central US.
ARC's Sponsor Bonus is a boost to your espionage.
Er... what?

It could also be a question of who you compare them to. Maybe they're impressive compared to all the other competitors for the US side of the project, but not so much when compared to the other nations' best. And who knows, maybe it was corporate espionage that enabled them to perform this "incredible feat" in the first place by bribing the right people, influencing the media, and appropriating support and technology via backdoor channels and covert ops?

> Our readers are curious - ARC is doing well now, no doubt, but there was obviously a rough period not so long ago. Are you able to elaborate on your role in the FBI’s "Operation Riverboat"?
I’ve never withheld anything about my involvement with the FBI’s investigations, but you’re focusing on the actions of a few bad apples over a decade ago. A few staff in one regional office were found accountable and were punished, and I don’t need to point out to you that neither ARC’s directorial team nor its board were ever found to be involved or even liable for what occurred there. The system worked in this case, and ARC’s cooperation with the FBI was praised by the Attorney General’s office.
I’ll also remind you that any discussion into the exact nature of what happened touches on proprietary information and practices of the ARC and you would be found liable for discussing them without our explicit permission.
-- interview with Suzanne Marjorie Fielding, ARC CEO/CFO

... nooo, not fishy at all ...

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:my laptop really isn't good at rendering the new graphics

Spoiler:

You gotta admit, it looks very alien!

 Lynata wrote:

Eumerin wrote:The North American sponser is ARC. According to the fluff, ARC is a massive corporation that demonstrated its competence by performing an incredible feat of reconstruction engineering in the Central US.
ARC's Sponsor Bonus is a boost to your espionage.
Er... what?

It could also be a question of who you compare them to. Maybe they're impressive compared to all the other competitors for the US side of the project, but not so much when compared to the other nations' best. And who knows, maybe it was corporate espionage that enabled them to perform this "incredible feat" in the first place by bribing the right people, influencing the media, and appropriating support and technology via backdoor channels and covert ops?

Then they should have put more into the fluff about it. There is not one hint in the fluff that ARC has been involved in espionage of any sort. Wrongdoing, possibly, depending on how much you think the company might have been involved with Riverboat. But the hints about Riverboat don't seem to suggest that it was a corporate espionage thing.

Also, my recollection is that the ARC entry in the Civpedia doesn't mention Riverboat. It only comes up in Fielding's bio, where - as I recall - it appears that her cooperation with the FBI helped boost her popularity with the shareholders.

And finally...

If they're behind other nations when it comes to engineering and industry, then there should be something in the ARC entry *other* than talking about how impressive the company's big engineering and industry accomplishment was. The Civpedia entries aren't corporate recruitment pamphlets. If there's something going on at the company that would justify the espionage bonus, then there should *AT LEAST* be mention of rumors regarding stolen research, etc... from other companies.

Eumerin wrote:Then they should have put more into the fluff about it. There is not one hint in the fluff that ARC has been involved in espionage of any sort. Wrongdoing, possibly, depending on how much you think the company might have been involved with Riverboat. But the hints about Riverboat don't seem to suggest that it was a corporate espionage thing.

Well, look at it this way - why would they mention shady dealings in faction fluff if it's not supposed to be a hint? Of note, however, is that you shouldn't look so closely at Operation Riverboat - but rather Fielding's reaction to coverage about it. She's attempting to control the flow of information.
And then there's the fact that the ARC is the only entirely private colony in the Seeding project, to which this corporation has somehow (*wink wink*) managed to gain a waiver from the government.

ARC is a corporation, one that is quite huge and supposedly active in just about anything "from crop sciences to tidal power generation to security contracting" (sounds familiar?). Given both the shadowrun'esque megacorp cliche as well as real life industry events, I consider a bonus to espionage to be suitable. The other leaders are in it for ideological reasons, looking for an utopia to save the future of their people, and have specialised their colonies accordingly. Fielding, on the other hand? She's in it for the money, and where other colonies may see neighbours and potential allies, she sees competition. Her colony is a well-oiled capitalist machine designed to adapt, improve and absorb, so perhaps it incorporates a broader "slice" of her company's employees and specialised divisions than the other more focused bases?

Eumerin wrote:If they're behind other nations when it comes to engineering and industry, then there should be something in the ARC entry *other* than talking about how impressive the company's big engineering and industry accomplishment was. The Civpedia entries aren't corporate recruitment pamphlets. If there's something going on at the company that would justify the espionage bonus, then there should *AT LEAST* be mention of rumors regarding stolen research, etc... from other companies.

I agree it could be made more obvious. There's a lot of "wasted space" in the menu where you select the faction; it would have been easy to insert a short description.

I wouldn't say they're behind the other nations, though. Not anymore, at least.

Thing is, iirc there's no hint within the game that Fielding has any reason to avoid conversations about Riverboat. It only gets mentioned because her cooperation with the authorities made her more popular with the shareholders, who then made her CEO. The interview you linked isn't found within the game itself. Remember, as I mentioned, the fluff descriptions aren't recruitment tracts being published by the sponsors. They're supposed to be objective statements by the developers about each company. Based on the fluff provided for ARC and its CEO, ARC is a completely above board company that has gained a lot of respect both due to its success with the Mississippi Valley(? I think that's what it's called) project, and because its CEO cooperated fully with the FBI in investigation that the FBI codenamed "Operation Riverboat". It only really works as a "read between the lines" thing if you're meant to believe that ARC's PR department wrote it. But I don't recall anything in the entries (for ARC or Fielding) to suggest that.

Well, I just finished playing a few hours of it, and I like it.
However, as yet, none of the faction leaders have really stood out for me. Maybe I just got so accustomed to the leaders in Alpha Centauri and all their quotes that helped define their characters?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

However, as yet, none of the faction leaders have really stood out for me.

Are the faction leaders much the same as in previous Civ games? Or are they entirely fictionalized?

It's sci-fi, the factions and leaders are all fictional, though they're based off of relatively modern political powers.

American Reclamation Corporation, for example, is the North American faction (and its leader is, amusingly enough, a female African American / Latina mix whom is the CEO of the corporation).

 Melissia wrote:
It's sci-fi, the factions and leaders are all fictional, though they're based off of relatively modern political powers.

Maybe that's the problem I have: they're just based off of modern political powers. In SMAC, they were mostly based off of ideologies.

Or maybe I just miss Prokhor Zakharov.

I think the reason they did it this way was so that they could justify all the nations being able to go through each affinity.

 Melissia wrote:
That sucks. Have you updated your graphics card drivers?

I've never touched them, in all honesty I don't know enough about computer's internal workings. I am attempting to save money to eventually be able to buy a proper PC, but it's a bit far off for now

Go in to Steam, open the main menu (it'll say Steam, View, Friends, Game, Help at the top, click Steam), click Check For Video Driver Updates. Follow the instructions given there.

Cheers Mel, I'll do that when I get home

I downloaded the pirate copy and really liked it, so went and bought it right away, game reviews are so packed full of lies these days I always "try before I buy" and this game for me is worth the cost, oddly enough I didn't like civ 5, but love this?

 Formosa wrote:
I downloaded the pirate copy and really liked it, so went and bought it right away, game reviews are so packed full of lies these days I always "try before I buy" and this game for me is worth the cost, oddly enough I didn't like civ 5, but love this?

That is odd seeing at it is basically Civ5 with a new skin and a new tech tree.

That does call for clarification- did you play just the base Civ 5, or with all the expansions- because they improved the game by orders of magnitude.

 Melissia wrote:
I think the reason they did it this way was so that they could justify all the nations being able to go through each affinity.

Played a lot more of it yesterday, and I think that is the problem I have with the factions not feeling very characterful to me. They're set up to be generic so that they can go with any affinity in the game. And, when you get the little audio quotes from researched techs and wonders, even if the quote is from one of the faction leaders, it isn't the faction leader speaking it, so there's even less reinforcement of their characters and less to connect to.

Even in normal Civ, the faction leaders are historical characters, so there is still some connection to make with them. Maybe as I play it more that aspect will get better.

Anyway, so far, I've been going the Supremacy route. I think next game I will try Harmony, but I find level 3 Supremacy to be so damn great (roads and magrails have no upkeep).

You do get logs from each of the faction leaders on loading screens. That's about all the characterization I noticed though.

So I have been playing it most of the weekend, loving purity. Their ideology and victory are the ones I probably relate to most. Their units look the business, all blocky and covered in guns and armour. Just about to build their ultimate unit: LEV destroyer, basically a floating fortress/battle station. Time to crush the xeno loving harmony!

The affinities remind me of Supreme Commander factions so much:
Purity: UEF (Also my fav faction - detecting a pattern lol)
Supremacy: Cybran
Harmony: Aeon

 Gitzbitah wrote:
That does call for clarification- did you play just the base Civ 5, or with all the expansions- because they improved the game by orders of magnitude.

Yeah, the expansions moved it from second/third best in the series to best.

Not counting SMAC which is why I am waiting for a sale to pick up this one, since I will inevitably make comparisons that I doubt will be favorable.

So many hours were sunk into Civ 5 and its expansions which made it a much better game than when it was released. I wonder how the new Civ will go in comparison but so far from what I've watched it seems to have some great potential, if a bit of an overwhelming option-fest for my senses
Here's to hoping for more variance in map appearance or even the possibility to play as an alien race if possible...

no I haven't tried the expansions in civ 5, didn't think they would be worth it as I didn't like the game, will take a look

That makes a lot of sense, formosa. I was horrified to find myself losing interest in Civ V about a month after buying it. Then Gods and Kings came out- and now I am drawn back about once a month or so to try to build another civilization. It really improves the experience dramatically.

I don't have Brave New World, so I can't give you any advice on that.

I played it some this weekend. It's OK. It's very, very much like Civ 5, which is good (if you liked it) and bad (if you wanted something new, or didn't).

I agree that none of the faction leaders seemed as... I dunno, interesting, as the previous ones.

Eumerin wrote:They're supposed to be objective statements by the developers about each company. Based on the fluff provided for ARC and its CEO, ARC is a completely above board company that has gained a lot of respect both due to its success with the Mississippi Valley(? I think that's what it's called) project, and because its CEO cooperated fully with the FBI in investigation that the FBI codenamed "Operation Riverboat".

Well, I can only say that personally, I didn't have that problem. The ARC is a private megacorp (and one which deals in "everything" as well as having monopolised the media at that), and I guess this alone was enough for me to not be surprised about a bonus for shady dealings. Blame it on my cynicism in regards to the real world.

Of course, you could also say the US faction getting a bonus for espionage was just a bit of contemporary social commentary by Firaxis.

Melissia wrote:(and its leader is, amusingly enough, a female African American / Latina mix whom is the CEO of the corporation).

Well, it has been 400 years by the time the game starts!

Melissia wrote:You do get logs from each of the faction leaders on loading screens. That's about all the characterization I noticed though.

Yeah, their ideologies having been intentionally kept somewhat open so that a player could direct them as they wish is probably a good point.
The civilopedia also has some cool entries about the leaders' backgrounds, though, and I really enjoyed the interview series on the website:

American Reclamation Corporation: Suzanne Fielding
Brasilia: Commander Bolivar
Franco-Iberia: Élodie
Kavithan Protectorate: Kavitha Thakur
Pan-Asian Cooperative: Daoming Sochau
People's African Union: Samatar Jama Barre
Polystralia: Minister Hutama
Slavic Federation: Vadim Kozlov

You can definitely gauge some very different personalities from those, they're just not as present in the game due to a lack of dialogue (same as in Civ V though). Combined with the loading screens, they also provide some interesting information on just how Earth looks by that time. An article in the Washington Post summed it up here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/the-wacky-geopolitics-of-civilization-beyond-earth/

Interestingly, this ties in to Eumerin's criticism: "McDonough and his partner in geostrategic crime, Will Miller, say this narrative is deliberately based on "who people presently are and what they're presently doing" as a way to connect players to a future world that might otherwise appear completely foreign or random."
If you look at the different factions and their civ bonuses as well as their civilopedia history, you can definitely draw some links to several current real world issues.


Pulled in a "Great Promise" victory this weekend, by the way:

My capital. Arriving colonists immigrate via the Warpgate on the mountains, check in at the city, then take the magrail tram through the terraformed jungles and past the university complex ... then passing through a desert filled with solar farms and into the territory of the former Kavithian Protectorate where they can work on the farms of the annexed cities.

Image link is broken, Lynata.


Completed quick games as both purity and harmony, liked both of their specific endings. They're both really optimistic and they make sense within the scope of the affinity.

One thing that I have always had problems with in every Civ game - always - is that despite many options for victory, I always have to go the military route. As someone who on a personal level deeply believes that most people are generally OK and want the same basic things, that diplomacy (usually) does work, and I'd prefer a solution in which we all get along towards a common goal - especially one as important as a place our entire doomed race can live.

But, like every other Civ game, evewntually despite my friendliness - pursuing co-operation agreements, refusing to be drawn into conflicts, giving resources when asked, respecting borders - inevitably someone starts some gak for either a lousy reason, or no reason at all. I'm minding my business, playing the game, even benevolently letting it slide when I discover a French spy in my capital - when the spokesman from the Franco contingent declares that she will tell the world of my sins, and everyone has their own stupid reasons all of a sudden, and long story short, the only thing I have ever been able to make work is taking what is mine with fire and blood, as the lady said.

I feel like I must be doing it wrong somehow.

Also, I played for hours on Sunday, and suddenly on turn 318, I lost - no reason given. That really pissed me off - not that I lost, but that I don't know who won, and why. It just showed the you-lose cinematic and gave me the one more turn\end game options.

That's gakky. It should tell you who won and why...

And give warnings when someone has completed a game-ending wonder...



I also noticed that the AI is really condemn-happy. Franco-Iberia especially...