View Full Version : I'm so Glad the Slide is Gone


Öjevind Lång
Oct 23, 2010, 07:57 AM
Talk about an exploit and a dumbing down! "Are the crowds unhappy? Just move the culture slide upwards a bit!" "Is science lagging? Just live on a deficit for a time!" Now you actually have to check what is happening in your cities and with your trade. I know that the slide has been around since ur-Civ, and I think taking it out was long overdue.

Guardian_PL
Oct 23, 2010, 08:01 AM
:confused:
Is this a flame bait? With slider I can decide for myself how much resources I want to spend for science with one click, in Civ5 with no science overflow I have to visit several cities and click galore to prevent wasting a lot of beakers, and then turn later do the same crap again. And you call that improvement?

pagh80
Oct 23, 2010, 08:25 AM
I dont miss it no, but i never hated it either.

PieceOfMind
Oct 23, 2010, 08:57 AM
The slider is an example of a streamlined gameplay feature. I didn't mind it in civ4 and every previous civ game. I think civ5 does well without it as well.

I do find it amusing though, as does the OP, that this is a feature of civ4 (and previous civs) that people don't seem to be prepared to admit was a streamlined mechanic.

It is a bit debatable, and there are in fact some subtleties with the slider system that newbies couldn't appreciate, but on the whole it was fairly simple to use, very quick and efficient for its task.

Civ5 makes its economy as streamlined as possible not via a slider, but through making all the calculations as transparent as possible. For example, the number of beakers you see in the corner is the exact number of beakers put towards the tech each turn. A lot of people might not know this, but in civ4, there were modifiers applied to the beakers after the amount shown in the top left of the screen. For example, if multiple of your rivals knew the tech you were researching, you accumulated beakers towards the tech a bit faster. Also, not that it made much of a difference, but you always got a minimum of 1 beaker towards a tech each turn, even if it displayed 0 beakers in the corner of the screen.

jjkrause84
Oct 23, 2010, 09:02 AM
I admit it was streamlined. It was a simple way of representing a complex component of your empire (your national budget). As I've said before: we've traded a national budget (however abstracted it was) for an allowance.

In any case the existence of a slider never meant you couldn't plan ahead...the two went hand in hand. Changing your slider could never compensate for not having built libraries or marketplaces or coliseums or what have you. Now you CAN out-tech your opponents without ever building a library (as shocking as that is).

Drawmeus
Oct 23, 2010, 09:48 AM
I never found the slider compelling, since just setting it to the max science your empire could support was pretty much always correct. Might as well have automated it.

Roxlimn
Oct 23, 2010, 09:53 AM
The slider was definitely a streamlined feature. Not having beaker overflow belongs in a completely separate discussion, since Civ 3 had no beaker overflow, and slider management.

Guardian PL:

Since these are the Civ V forums, a post that praises a development from Civ 4 to Civ 5 isn't what I would call flame-bait. Threads that emphasize the superiority of Civ 4 would be closer to that. Those would rightly belong in the Civ 4 forums.

lschnarch
Oct 23, 2010, 10:23 AM
A lot of people might not know this, but in civ4, there were modifiers applied to the beakers after the amount shown in the top left of the screen. For example, if multiple of your rivals knew the tech you were researching, you accumulated beakers towards the tech a bit faster. Also, not that it made much of a difference, but you always got a minimum of 1 beaker towards a tech each turn, even if it displayed 0 beakers in the corner of the screen.

And all of this is related to the slider in which way?

This sounds quite similar to the discussion about the SoD, where people blame it for "best defender first".

The slider per se had nothing to do with some strange modifiers which were not obvious at first glance, as the stacks didn't have anything to do (per se) with "best defender first".

Actually, the slider (as representation of a nation funding special purposes from their GNP) was VERY streamlined.
That the whole system as combination of different individual game mechanics did have its flaws however shall not be denied.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 23, 2010, 10:29 AM
The slider is an example of a streamlined gameplay feature. I didn't mind it in civ4 and every previous civ game. I think civ5 does well without it as well.

I do find it amusing though, as does the OP, that this is a feature of civ4 (and previous civs) that people don't seem to be prepared to admit was a streamlined mechanic.

It is a bit debatable, and there are in fact some subtleties with the slider system that newbies couldn't appreciate, but on the whole it was fairly simple to use, very quick and efficient for its task.

Civ5 makes its economy as streamlined as possible not via a slider, but through making all the calculations as transparent as possible. For example, the number of beakers you see in the corner is the exact number of beakers put towards the tech each turn. A lot of people might not know this, but in civ4, there were modifiers applied to the beakers after the amount shown in the top left of the screen. For example, if multiple of your rivals knew the tech you were researching, you accumulated beakers towards the tech a bit faster. Also, not that it made much of a difference, but you always got a minimum of 1 beaker towards a tech each turn, even if it displayed 0 beakers in the corner of the screen.

I think that the sliders are the features that the complainers less care... I haven't seen much people praying for them to return...

So, what's the point of this thread?:confused:

PieceOfMind
Oct 23, 2010, 10:31 AM
And all of this is related to the slider in which way?

This sounds quite similar to the discussion about the SoD, where people blame it for "best defender first".

The slider per se had nothing to do with some strange modifiers which were not obvious at first glance, as the stacks didn't have anything to do (per se) with "best defender first".

Actually, the slider (as representation of a nation funding special purposes from their GNP) was VERY streamlined.
That the whole system as combination of different individual game mechanics did have its flaws however shall not be denied.

I didn't say it's relevant to the slider. Let me put my quote again, but with the intended context:


Civ5 makes its economy as streamlined as possible not via a slider, but through making all the calculations as transparent as possible. For example, the number of beakers you see in the corner is the exact number of beakers put towards the tech each turn. A lot of people might not know this, but in civ4, there were modifiers applied to the beakers after the amount shown in the top left of the screen. For example, if multiple of your rivals knew the tech you were researching, you accumulated beakers towards the tech a bit faster. Also, not that it made much of a difference, but you always got a minimum of 1 beaker towards a tech each turn, even if it displayed 0 beakers in the corner of the screen.(emphasis added)

By chopping off the bolded bit, you were cutting off the critical part of my message.

My point was (and I apologise that I did not make it clearer) that civ5 streamlines the economy in a different way. To illustrate that, while acknowledging that the slider itself was a streamlined feature, I showed that there were aspects of the economy in civ4 that were far from streamlined.

My post was never intended to be solely a comment about sliders.


I think that the sliders are the features that the complainers less care... I haven't seen much people praying for them to return...

So, what's the point of this thread?:confused:

What's the point of just about every thread in civ5 general discussions?

To have a discussion? OP is glad the slider is gone. That is a topic that can be discussed (agree/disagree/comment etc.).

Roxlimn
Oct 23, 2010, 10:32 AM
JLoZeppeli:

Someone voicing pleasure at more complex economic management in Civ V? It seems fairly obvious to me.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 23, 2010, 10:34 AM
No it seems to me that they don't want back sliders, but it not means to them that Civ V has better or deeper economic management, it's awful in another way, that's simple, everyone can understand that...

Roxlimn
Oct 23, 2010, 10:42 AM
Your wording isn't making sense, man. Need to rerun that through Babelfish.

Dun Malg
Oct 23, 2010, 10:50 AM
I never found the slider compelling, since just setting it to the max science your empire could support was pretty much always correct. Might as well have automated it.

No, you couldn't automate it because it wasn't always correct to emphasize tech to exactly the point of minimum positive tax income. Granted, the central pillar supporting every iteration of Civ has been "research or die" and subsequently the slider spends 90% of its time maxing out beakers, but that doesn't mean the other 10% is inconsequential. The ability to max out income is crucial to waging war sometimes, and in CIV-BtS pumping up espionage was occasionally useful as well. Even when keeping it at near-max reserch, there was still always a question of "should I play it safe at +2 coins/turn, or push for that tech one turn sooner with a -1 coin/turn deficit, or even -5 coins for two turns sooner?" How do you automate that?

Lone Wolf
Oct 23, 2010, 10:57 AM
in Civ5 with no science overflow I have to visit several cities and click galore to prevent wasting a lot of beakers,

Isn't the lack of overflow the main culprit here, not the slider removal?

BTW, imagine that in Civ4, there's no food and hammers any longer, but foodammers and a foodammers slider - each city now has one. What would your reaction be ;)?

(Didn't play Civ5, BTW).

Drawmeus
Oct 23, 2010, 11:04 AM
No, you couldn't automate it because it wasn't always correct to emphasize tech to exactly the point of minimum positive tax income. Granted, the central pillar supporting every iteration of Civ has been "research or die" and subsequently the slider spends 90% of its time maxing out beakers, but that doesn't mean the other 10% is inconsequential. The ability to max out income is crucial to waging war sometimes, and in CIV-BtS pumping up espionage was occasionally useful as well. Even when keeping it at near-max reserch, there was still always a question of "should I play it safe at +2 coins/turn, or push for that tech one turn sooner with a -1 coin/turn deficit, or even -5 coins for two turns sooner?" How do you automate that?

It's more like the other < 1% of the time. Maxing income is almost never important waging war in Civ IV if you've planned even marginally well. Maxing espionage might have been ok if espionage mattered (or was less annoying), but frankly I've never found myself saying "Man, if only I had a bit more espionage." The only time my science slider was less than max is once I hit the crucial techs for a culture victory, I'd disable science for culture. Stagnating for extended periods of time in order to win a culture victory is not something I miss.

Lone Wolf
Oct 23, 2010, 11:06 AM
Civ4 players usually max their income when preparing a massive unit upgrade.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 23, 2010, 11:10 AM
Your wording isn't making sense, man. Need to rerun that through Babelfish.

I don't use babelfish...

If you want i can repeat my statemant:

No one wants sliders back, but those complaining about the Civ V economic managemant, are stating that the CURRENT management is awful as Civ IV, because it is not deeper or better in any way.

Comprendre? Je l'espère....

jjkrause84
Oct 23, 2010, 11:14 AM
A lot of this is good but ignores that a Civ5 slider could have been mroe complex and better balanced than previous versions where you spent every last dime you had on research.

Roxlimn
Oct 23, 2010, 11:22 AM
JLoZeppeli:

Better, but the idiomatic use appears to be wrong. "Who" is an indicator of a question, and using it in that fashion indicates a rhetorical question meant to state the converse. So are you saying that Civ V management is better and not as awful as CivIV's?

r_rolo1
Oct 23, 2010, 11:42 AM
I don't miss the slider, but the current situation in civ V of no slider + no research overflow makes this civ interaction the more MM inducing in this part of the game since civ II atleast...

I sincerily hope they really put research overflow or the slider ( most likely the first ... the second does not bode well with the rest of the game ) in civ V just to avoid the extremely unfun show of seeing 95% or a turn's worth in research going to the drain just because you had the bad luck of missing some beakers to the full tech in the previous turn :/

vincentz
Oct 23, 2010, 12:12 PM
No, you couldn't automate it because it wasn't always correct to emphasize tech to exactly the point of minimum positive tax income. Granted, the central pillar supporting every iteration of Civ has been "research or die" and subsequently the slider spends 90% of its time maxing out beakers, but that doesn't mean the other 10% is inconsequential. The ability to max out income is crucial to waging war sometimes, and in CIV-BtS pumping up espionage was occasionally useful as well. Even when keeping it at near-max reserch, there was still always a question of "should I play it safe at +2 coins/turn, or push for that tech one turn sooner with a -1 coin/turn deficit, or even -5 coins for two turns sooner?" How do you automate that?

Good point. My personal feeling of Civ5 was that all I had to do was hit enter. There were no longer any empire management left. I like to do micro management. Thats why I liked the civ series. Every small thing you remove about management is a downgrade IMO. I really thought they were going to add the ideas of RevDCM. Instead they removed 10-15 management tools, making it a very dull game. If TakeTwo want streamlining, I hope another company will take up empire management in the name of Civilization.

It's more like the other < 1% of the time. Maxing income is almost never important waging war in Civ IV if you've planned even marginally well. Maxing espionage might have been ok if espionage mattered (or was less annoying), but frankly I've never found myself saying "Man, if only I had a bit more espionage." The only time my science slider was less than max is once I hit the crucial techs for a culture victory, I'd disable science for culture. Stagnating for extended periods of time in order to win a culture victory is not something I miss.
Thats a shame. When Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette went for the cultural victory they seemed to have lots of decadent fun. (atleast untill they lost their heads ;))

Windsor
Oct 23, 2010, 12:19 PM
I miss the slider a bit. Science from commerce seems better than science from food. The Civ4 economy worked well, the Civ5-economy is deeply flawed.

Eskel
Oct 23, 2010, 12:20 PM
I have found a new system very user un-friendly. For example, f you have gold deficit, you must in each city change working tile allocation to gain additional income. It is dull, tiring, and non-sensical micromangement.

Moreover, you cannot set two (or more) preferred outcomes, as was in previous civ games. City auto-governor can focus only on one aim.

The game loses on its fluency and precision. Please bring sliders back!!! (among other features)

Dun Malg
Oct 23, 2010, 01:24 PM
The only time my science slider was less than max is once I hit the crucial techs for a culture victory, I'd disable science for culture.

What can I say? My play style wasn't like that. Unfortunately, it sounds to me like you're saying that since your play style with the slider could be adequately reproduced with two lines of C++ {while(TaxIncome > 0) slider--; slider++;} that arguments for wanting that control are invalid. I've had 100% tax buy me just enough defense to save my bacon from surprise attacks many times. Your way would simply have me lose the game for lack of recourse. Why not remove other choices as well? Heck, let's take 'em all away and make the game one single coin toss! (...and reductio ad absurdum for the win!)

Drawmeus
Oct 23, 2010, 02:44 PM
What can I say? My play style wasn't like that. Unfortunately, it sounds to me like you're saying that since your play style with the slider could be adequately reproduced with two lines of C++ {while(TaxIncome > 0) slider--; slider++;} that arguments for wanting that control are invalid. I've had 100% tax buy me just enough defense to save my bacon from surprise attacks many times. Your way would simply have me lose the game for lack of recourse. Why not remove other choices as well? Heck, let's take 'em all away and make the game one single coin toss! (...and reductio ad absurdum for the win!)

Your "reductio" is actually the slippery slope fallacy, but nice try :rolleyes:

I honestly did not know that ANYONE was making use of that thing. Focused science is so clearly the best bet almost always that you pretty much can win on any difficulty without doing anything else.

r_rolo1
Oct 23, 2010, 02:47 PM
I honestly did not know that ANYONE was making use of that thing. Focused science is so clearly the best bet almost always that you pretty much can win on any difficulty without doing anything else.
You really need to dig deeper :p A lot of of the better civ IV players use the slider at 0% science in most of the games as a system. Just check games by acidsatyr or obsolete :D Both played in high levels BTW ( Imm/deity )

Drawmeus
Oct 23, 2010, 03:02 PM
You really need to dig deeper :p A lot of of the better civ IV players use the slider at 0% science in most of the games as a system. Just check games by acidsatyr or obsolete :D Both played in high levels BTW ( Imm/deity )

This comment is not exactly selling me on the compelling nature of the slider... even if it's true, it sounds even cheesier than I thought it was (when I thought it was just pointless).

Honestly, though, if they want to put that kind of decision-making in the game, a % slider is a pretty terrible way to do it. It's a poor design, imo. I can see the desire for that kind of influence over your empire, but I'd go with something totally different.

jjkrause84
Oct 23, 2010, 03:08 PM
How would you, personally, represent an empire's national budget?

r_rolo1
Oct 23, 2010, 03:08 PM
@Drawmeus

I am not trying to convince you of the necessity of a slider ( my position on the subject is seeable in the first post of this page ). I was just pointing you of a error in you post.

I also agree that there are methods better than the slider for this kind of tuning, but a slider is probably better than nothing for some functions.

Abegweit
Oct 23, 2010, 03:11 PM
You really need to dig deeper :p A lot of of the better civ IV players use the slider at 0% science in most of the games as a system. Just check games by acidsatyr or obsolete :D Both played in high levels BTW ( Imm/deity )

How do you play Civ4 with the slider at zero? It could be done in 3 but surely in 4 you need to research Writing at the very minimum.

r_rolo1
Oct 23, 2010, 03:14 PM
How do you play Civ4 with the slider at zero? It could be done in 3 but surely in 4 you need to research Writing at the very minimum.
Well, not necessarily (http://www.compoundeye.net/civ/noscience/index.html) ... ok, he teched some early stuff, but I'm pretty sure he could had skipped that as well. And this was in vanilla. In BtS it would have been even easier.

KahunaGod
Oct 23, 2010, 03:25 PM
I REALLY REALLY REALLY dont understand this thread. Why are you even concerned about science and culture and checking cities. Its completely irrelevant to beating the AI at any difficulty. Its kind of the opposite of "cant see the forest due to the trees". Now you havent figured out there isnt a forest cuz you cant get around one little tree.

Wether or not CiV is better/worse without the slider makes no difference, as nothing you could "slide" have any freakin impact in the game in any way.

Swearing removed.

Roxlimn
Oct 23, 2010, 03:53 PM
r_rolo1:

The example is invalid because it was played at Monarch and as we know, "anything works on Monarch." ;)

r_rolo1
Oct 23, 2010, 03:58 PM
r_rolo1:

The example is invalid because it was played at Monarch and as we know, "anything works on Monarch." ;)
Well, not everything :p But most of the crazy stuff works up to monarch in civ IV, I reckon ...

Not that is any kind of argument about what I was talking about. The poster I was responding to was asking how could you play with the slider @ 0% science in civ IV without even getting Writing. My example is fair game for that :p

Maxor127
Oct 24, 2010, 01:43 AM
I liked the slider. Having no control over science, gold, or happiness is what's dumb. It was a simple but powerful tool that accurately reflected real taxation. And it made for a more dynamic game.

Egnarts
Oct 24, 2010, 01:54 AM
The slider is an example of a streamlined gameplay feature. I didn't mind it in civ4 and every previous civ game. I think civ5 does well without it as well.

I do find it amusing though, as does the OP, that this is a feature of civ4 (and previous civs) that people don't seem to be prepared to admit was a streamlined mechanic.

It is a bit debatable, and there are in fact some subtleties with the slider system that newbies couldn't appreciate, but on the whole it was fairly simple to use, very quick and efficient for its task.

Civ5 makes its economy as streamlined as possible not via a slider, but through making all the calculations as transparent as possible. For example, the number of beakers you see in the corner is the exact number of beakers put towards the tech each turn. A lot of people might not know this, but in civ4, there were modifiers applied to the beakers after the amount shown in the top left of the screen. For example, if multiple of your rivals knew the tech you were researching, you accumulated beakers towards the tech a bit faster. Also, not that it made much of a difference, but you always got a minimum of 1 beaker towards a tech each turn, even if it displayed 0 beakers in the corner of the screen.


I find it quite amusing how you can make it sound like "streamlining" features is a good thing. It isnt allways. Just because something is slicker or easier to grasp does not make it better. In this case it's just alot more shallow. Heck, they did the same to diplomacy, and to the point where it's completely irrelevant. Do I care if i sell my resource to guy1 or guy2? Not really. I think diplomacy and the other "streamlined" features in this game is for the people that have an attention span of a five year old. That's probably why they've got the new "awesome" gfx, to help you get distracted from the features that should matter but doesn't.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 24, 2010, 02:32 AM
I REALLY REALLY REALLY dont understand this thread. Why are you even concerned about science and culture and checking cities. Its completely irrelevant to beating the AI at any difficulty. Its kind of the opposite of "cant see the forest due to the trees". Now you havent figured out there isnt a forest cuz you cant get around one little tree.

Wether or not CiV is better/worse without the slider makes no difference, as nothing you could "slide" have any freakin impact in the game in any way.

Swearing removed.

I beg to differ with KahunaGod. Sometimes you need gold; sometimes you need production in a city; sometimes you need to research a technology as soon as possible. Sometimes you need a concerted effort from all your cities, or as many as can be taken out of doing other things, in order to achieve something.

PieceOfMind
Oct 24, 2010, 02:47 AM
I find it quite amusing how you can make it sound like "streamlining" features is a good thing. It isnt allways. Just because something is slicker or easier to grasp does not make it better. In this case it's just alot more shallow. Heck, they did the same to diplomacy, and to the point where it's completely irrelevant. Do I care if i sell my resource to guy1 or guy2? Not really. I think diplomacy and the other "streamlined" features in this game is for the people that have an attention span of a five year old. That's probably why they've got the new "awesome" gfx, to help you get distracted from the features that should matter but doesn't.

In what way is diplomacy in civ5 streamlined? Is it because you don't like how it works?

Jediron
Oct 24, 2010, 02:57 AM
I never found the slider compelling, since just setting it to the max science your empire could support was pretty much always correct. Might as well have automated it.
I disagree. Maybe it workes well on lower levels, but on higher levels like emperor you could better LOWER your science research, building up cash and make soe war here and there to get "free techs" from the AI players. Then, at the right moment, you switched to more science research. This strategy works way better when done right.

So no, your one fits all solution isn't valid at all in all cases. There are better strategies to follow.

Diplo in CIV 5 is streamlined while you cannot trade tech anymore. That's one good example.

Egnarts
Oct 24, 2010, 03:26 AM
In what way is diplomacy in civ5 streamlined? Is it because you don't like how it works?

It's hard to have any feelings for or against something that simply do not excist. That's kinda my point, you can call it diplomacy all day, but it really isnt.

PieceOfMind
Oct 24, 2010, 04:43 AM
It's hard to have any feelings for or against something that simply do not excist. That's kinda my point, you can call it diplomacy all day, but it really isnt.

So when Bismarck asks me to stop purchasing land near his cities and I assure him that it won't happen again, yet I do it again within a couple of turns and he immediately comes back saying how disappointed he is that I did that, and 10 or so turns later he declares war, that is non-existent diplomacy?

Look, I can understand if the seemingly erratic behaviour of AIs and the lack (most of the time) of tangible feedback to the player with their diplomatic interactions can be frustrating, but I think you're kidding yourself in denying that diplomacy exists in the game, or just intentionally exaggerating to make your point.

When my people are incredibly unhappy, I've had leaders approach me saying they can hear the screams and cries of the people living under my rule. I get the impression that AIs take into account various factors that weren't used in civ4. The happiness of my population is just one example.

Guardian_PL
Oct 24, 2010, 04:57 AM
So when Bismarck asks me to stop purchasing land near his cities and I assure him that it won't happen again, yet I do it again within a couple of turns and he immediately comes back saying how disappointed he is that I did that, and 10 or so turns later he declares war, that is non-existent diplomacy?

Look, I can understand if the seemingly erratic behaviour of AIs and the lack (most of the time) of tangible feedback to the player with their diplomatic interactions can be frustrating, but I think you're kidding yourself in denying that diplomacy exists in the game, or just intentionally exaggerating to make your point.

When my people are incredibly unhappy, I've had leaders approach me saying they can hear the screams and cries of the people living under my rule. I get the impression that AIs take into account various factors that weren't used in civ4. The happiness of my population is just one example.
I'm sorry but this is all smoke and mirrors - an illusion of meaningful diplomatic choices. The truth is that no matter how amicable you are to the AI you then settle a city 15 tiles away from them, or defend against some other AI earning bloodthirsty status and that's it. Inevitably, EVERYTHING ends in a bloodbath. In the aftermath if you've survived (sometimes on Deity you actually CAN be swarmed over) then it's "next turn, next turn" till whichever victory is closest (went Rationalism? Go for Space. Bought all City-States? Go Diplo, nobody will stop you).

I agree with Egnarts on this one - atm there's no diplomacy in fifth installment of game about civilizations. And I find it actually hilarious that some folks counter such statement with saying that in Civ4 other AIs never played to win :lol: It happened way too often for me to lose late game in Civ4 with "befriendable" AIs then now - because in Civ5 by late game there's like two of them remaining, and they have no clue how to actually win :rolleyes:

PieceOfMind
Oct 24, 2010, 05:23 AM
Inevitably, EVERYTHING ends in a bloodbath.

I have already had games where this is simply untrue, including one at Deity where I was significantly outgunned in all aspects, including size of military, technological progress, culture, number of cities and so on. In that game none of the AIs declared on me, though I was doing nothing to particularly annoy them either.

So either you've been very unlucky to have never seen a game where everything didn't turn into a bloodbath, or you haven't played many games where you weren't so close to winning.

I think part of the cause of everyone finding the game turns into a bloodbath is that the human player is usually in a position where he is advancing towards a type of victory. For example, if you are befriending lots of city states or building lots of cities, or conquering people even though they declared war on you, these are all things that would make an AI jealous or annoyed at you.

I know that people don't like the board-game type AIs, where their interactions with you are possibly more influenced by their desire to win the game than by any pretending to act like a historical leader personality, but I think there is thought going on under all of it and that the way they behave is just very different to civ4. I also suspect there are a few bugs involved and that those may be contributing to some of the erratic behaviour.

In civ5 I have noticed that the leaders who are more annoyed at me (e.g. because I have expanded close to them) tend to offer me less for the deals I propose. Just another example of how diplomacy in civ5 is at the very least a bit more than non-existent.

TheBlackAdderBG
Oct 24, 2010, 06:08 AM
Yes ,the sliders are streamlined feature.Look at Victoria 2,is so streamlined with all the sliders for budget control.;)

need my speed
Oct 24, 2010, 08:22 AM
There is no diplomacy. Well, there is, but it all leads to war no matter what you do. If in some games you didn't wage war, then you didn't do diplomacy.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 24, 2010, 08:52 AM
I disagree. Maybe it workes well on lower levels, but on higher levels like emperor you could better LOWER your science research, building up cash and make soe war here and there to get "free techs" from the AI players. Then, at the right moment, you switched to more science research. This strategy works way better when done right.

So no, your one fits all solution isn't valid at all in all cases. There are better strategies to follow.

Diplo in CIV 5 is streamlined while you cannot trade tech anymore. That's one good example.

The tech trading was asinine, and I'm very glad it is gone. One shouldn't be able to get ahead in science by simply demanding technologies from other civs.

Jediron
Oct 24, 2010, 08:53 AM
You do not simply demand them, you have to fight for it and it makes perfect sence. If i hold a gun at your head, there's a good change you give me "anything" , aren't you ? :p

Guardian_PL
Oct 24, 2010, 09:01 AM
The tech trading was asinine, and I'm very glad it is gone. One shouldn't be able to get ahead in science by simply demanding technologies from other civs.
Don't like it? No Tech Brokering. Complaining that leaders behave the same? Random Personalities. Don't like Espionage? Disable it.

Why any form of tech trading as well as foreign trade routes had been axed from Civ5? Isn't it what diplomacy and foreign relations should be about in empire game?
...
Oh, sorry, I've just answered my own question here - what diplomacy? :D
No diplomacy=no meaningful trade=streamlined and organic CivRev2 Civ5 world :goodjob:

Öjevind Lång
Oct 24, 2010, 09:08 AM
Don't like it? No Tech Brokering. Complaining that leaders behave the same? Random Personalities. Don't like Espionage? Disable it.

Why any form of tech trading as well as foreign trade routes had been axed from Civ5? Isn't it what diplomacy and foreign relations should be about in empire game?
...
Oh, sorry, I've just answered my own question here - what diplomacy? :D
No diplomacy=no meaningful trade=streamlined and organic CivRev2 Civ5 world :goodjob:

IOW, you are saying that you hanker for Civ IV. That is perfectly legitimate. But I repeat that getting technical advances thorugh bullying or warfare is silly, and that I hated the espionage feature in BtS. We clearly disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, but you may be posting in the wrong forum.

lschnarch
Oct 24, 2010, 09:11 AM
So when Bismarck asks me to stop purchasing land near his cities and I assure him that it won't happen again, yet I do it again within a couple of turns and he immediately comes back saying how disappointed he is that I did that, and 10 or so turns later he declares war, that is non-existent diplomacy?

Yes, it is non-existent diplomacy.
Do you know how LONG you're bound to such an agreement?
Do you know whether this includes the cultural extension, too?
Do you know whether this pact is influenced by him, Bismarck, found a new city even closer to your borders?

I have to admit, I don't know any of these things. Which actually renders all possible repliese meaningless, if not in raising the chance of getting attacked to even a higher level ("We settle where we want").


Look, I can understand if the seemingly erratic behaviour of AIs and the lack (most of the time) of tangible feedback to the player with their diplomatic interactions can be frustrating, but I think you're kidding yourself in denying that diplomacy exists in the game, or just intentionally exaggerating to make your point.
Actually, I think YOU are kidding yourself.

You want the diplomacy to be meaningful in a certain way. Yet, as long as there isn't any meaningful, understandable feedback, it comes down to some kind of multiple choice.
Pick whatever option pleases you, and still you don't know about the results.


When my people are incredibly unhappy, I've had leaders approach me saying they can hear the screams and cries of the people living under my rule. I get the impression that AIs take into account various factors that weren't used in civ4. The happiness of my population is just one example.

Yes, and when you and say Askia are already at war against say Gandhi, Askia comes later and asks about a pact of secrecy against Gandhi.
Now, how meaningful is this?

Obviously, this request at that moment isn't meaningful in any way. So, what are the consequences of the option which you will pick?
Are there any consequences at all?

You don't know it. I don't know it, either.
When in diplomacy, you are just in a black box and don't get any feedback. Which means, there isn't any "diplomacy" at all.

lschnarch
Oct 24, 2010, 09:16 AM
IOW, you are saying that you hanker for Civ IV.
I don't think he is saying this.
He is, though, saying that the mechanics in Civ4 were more meaningful, to which I agree.


That is perfectly legitimate. But I repeat that getting technical advances thorugh bullying or warfare is silly, and that I hated the espionage feature in BtS. We clearly disagree. There's nothing wrong with that, but you may be posting in the wrong forum.

The fact that espionage, just to stay with that example, was rather poorly implemented does not mean that espionage itself is meaningless.

We have read so many complaints about how poorly warfare was implemented in Civ4.
Yet, it was not cut in Civ0.V.

Why not? They have cut almost anything which was allegedly poor or weak in Civ4. So, why does warfare constitute the big exception?
Can you answer this? And when you are answering it, why has combat been changed?

joyous_gard
Oct 24, 2010, 09:22 AM
I liked the slide. Now I need to go to all my cities and adjust them for the focus I want. The slider was a case where CIV IV version of dumbed down was better.

need my speed
Oct 24, 2010, 09:24 AM
100% correct.

That was to Ischnarch.

Lone Wolf
Oct 24, 2010, 10:25 AM
From where all that "demanding tech in civ4 was asinine! - no, it was kewl!" debate comes from? Civ4 AI were very reluctant to part with their tech when getting beat down (and it was a good design decision).

Many points both for and against Civ4 made on these boards are plain weird.

Don't like Espionage? Disable it.

To be fair here, "disable espionage" option was clumsy because it produced a number of weird side effects.

Guardian_PL
Oct 24, 2010, 10:29 AM
To be fair here, "disable espionage" option was clumsy because it produced a number of weird side effects.
Really? What kind? I've never encountered any.

Windsor
Oct 24, 2010, 10:32 AM
All espionage points where converted to culture, so cultural victories became very easy with espionage off.

Lone Wolf
Oct 24, 2010, 11:06 AM
Really? What kind? I've never encountered any.

All espionage points got converted to culture; though Windsor's post is incorrect, because the culture victory threshold was changed with that option. Still, it was a gameplay change.
Spy specialists and all wonders that gave Great Spy points, after applying the option gave weird "neutral Great People" points, which gave GPP but didn't effect the chances of the next Great Person at all.

r_rolo1
Oct 24, 2010, 11:08 AM
All espionage points got converted to culture; though Windsor's post is incorrect, because the culture victory threshold was changed with that option. Still, it was a gameplay change.
Spy specialists and all wonders that gave Great Spy points, after applying the option gave weird "neutral Great People" points, which gave GPP but didn't effect the chances of the next Great Person at all.
You forgot the event that in 3.19 No espionage was a auto-war sentence because the other 2 options of the event were espionage related, thus blocked :p

LDiCesare
Oct 24, 2010, 11:11 AM
I miss the slider.
I now have to micromanage cities to get a global happiness resource. I think it's jusst completely backwards.

PieceOfMind
Oct 24, 2010, 11:35 AM
Yes, it is non-existent diplomacy.
Do you know how LONG you're bound to such an agreement?
Do you know whether this includes the cultural extension, too?
Do you know whether this pact is influenced by him, Bismarck, found a new city even closer to your borders?

I have to admit, I don't know any of these things. Which actually renders all possible repliese meaningless, if not in raising the chance of getting attacked to even a higher level ("We settle where we want").


Actually, I think YOU are kidding yourself.

You want the diplomacy to be meaningful in a certain way. Yet, as long as there isn't any meaningful, understandable feedback, it comes down to some kind of multiple choice.
Pick whatever option pleases you, and still you don't know about the results.



Yes, and when you and say Askia are already at war against say Gandhi, Askia comes later and asks about a pact of secrecy against Gandhi.
Now, how meaningful is this?

Obviously, this request at that moment isn't meaningful in any way. So, what are the consequences of the option which you will pick?
Are there any consequences at all?

You don't know it. I don't know it, either.
When in diplomacy, you are just in a black box and don't get any feedback. Which means, there isn't any "diplomacy" at all.

You appear to be working with a different definition of diplomacy. To you it means clear feedback, complete information and easily predicted outcomes.

These are things that aren't very big in civ5 diplomacy, and I too think it would be better if they were more prominent, but the lack of those things does not mean there is no diplomacy.

Giving me examples of where an AI has acted not very rationally, or asking me to predict how something will affect an AI without other necessary information (like the situation in the game) is not going to prove your point.

Why don't we wait til we get the c++ sdk source for the AI, maybe in a few months time, and if it's true that there's no diplomacy, we'll see an aweful lot of RNG rolls and empty functions in the diplomacy AI files. I bet they are just as detailed or complex as civ4's. (Note: that isn't necessary saying much positive about civ5, as civ4 did have some very simple and bare functions in its diplomacy code ;))

moscaverde
Oct 24, 2010, 12:28 PM
No it seems to me that they don't want back sliders, but it not means to them that Civ V has better or deeper economic management, it's awful in another way, that's simple, everyone can understand that...

The removal os the slider and the new economic system is the single thing i dislike most of Civ 5.
I'm not a hardcore player and don't want to calculate my economy for every building I make. In 4 I could build what I though was best for me and for my civ, now it looks like math (the complexity came from the buildings themselves, compared with the simple buildings of Civ 5).
The main problem of the sliders was that there wasn't many uses for gold.

jagdtigerciv
Oct 24, 2010, 01:30 PM
Removal of the slider is one of the best features of Civ5. Why was it in Civ4? Wait, why was it in Civ3?!

Guardian_PL
Oct 24, 2010, 02:16 PM
Removal of the slider is one of the best features of Civ5. Why was it in Civ4? Wait, why was it in Civ3?!

?
Oh, no worries, I'll read the thread for you, clicking&scrolling can be so tiresome...

I miss the slider a bit. Science from commerce seems better than science from food. The Civ4 economy worked well, the Civ5-economy is deeply flawed.

I have found a new system very user un-friendly. For example, f you have gold deficit, you must in each city change working tile allocation to gain additional income. It is dull, tiring, and non-sensical micromangement.

Moreover, you cannot set two (or more) preferred outcomes, as was in previous civ games. City auto-governor can focus only on one aim.

The game loses on its fluency and precision. Please bring sliders back!!! (among other features)

I liked the slider. Having no control over science, gold, or happiness is what's dumb. It was a simple but powerful tool that accurately reflected real taxation. And it made for a more dynamic game.

I liked the slide. Now I need to go to all my cities and adjust them for the focus I want. The slider was a case where CIV IV version of dumbed down was better.

I admit it was streamlined. It was a simple way of representing a complex component of your empire (your national budget). As I've said before: we've traded a national budget (however abstracted it was) for an allowance.

In any case the existence of a slider never meant you couldn't plan ahead...the two went hand in hand. Changing your slider could never compensate for not having built libraries or marketplaces or coliseums or what have you. Now you CAN out-tech your opponents without ever building a library (as shocking as that is).

And btw sliders were also in Civ2

Eberon
Oct 24, 2010, 03:05 PM
In the previous games you had sliders and specialists to adjust your production. Now for some reason your money cant be used to boost your research anymore. How does that make sense?

Sliders were a staple of civ. They were one of the many things prior to this incarnation that I would have called a title defining feature.

As far as the diplomacy goes... There is no MEANINGFUL diplo in this game. Aparantly it can be argued that their are technicaly diplo calculations going on behind the scenes. From reading this thread I am under the impression that the only action that actualy has an efect on the outcome is are you moving toward a victory or not. If you are not making headway toward a victory of any kind then the AI follows its leader personality with modifiers based on interactions. If you are too strong or weak, happy or sad, rich or poor, score is too high, too many wonders, within 15 hex of another civ, or in any way are trying to win then all factors are chucked out the window and the AI is immediately hostile. That is not meaningful diplomacy.

Jediron
Oct 24, 2010, 04:04 PM
Espionage in CIV 1 and 2 were the best, with a unit to move around. CIv 3 & 4 spy's were "dumbed down" and i did not lot like/use them much, for one thing the prices for some missions were absurd high. Now, in CIV 5 they have taken SPying out 100%. Why ?
A missed oppertunity if you ask me, more so while there isn't much to do alltogether in CIV 5, with so less units to worry about. With a bit of creativity the SPYing could have been alot of fun in CIV 5. Look at the TW series, there are some lessons to be learned. Instead, they thought: hey, let's give the player "city states", "Allies for a few bucks more". Dumbed down "civilisations".
Real smart choices, people! (not)

jjkrause84
Oct 24, 2010, 04:17 PM
Sliders were a staple of civ. They were one of the many things prior to this incarnation that I would have called a title defining feature.

Exactly. I never in my wildest dreams could have imagined a Civ game without a slider....it would simply NEVER have occured to me. It's like saying we're gonna have a Civ game but you can't build farms....it's absolutely fundamental!

Celevin
Oct 24, 2010, 04:47 PM
In the previous games you had sliders and specialists to adjust your production. Now for some reason your money cant be used to boost your research anymore. How does that make sense?
Gold is now used as a more versatile version of production that also has worse returns. Use gold to buy libraries and universities, and your research will go up. You may also sign research agreements. You just can't choose to give up all gold production (a huge mechanic in the game) for more research.

In Civ4, I would make a gold mine, but I wouldn't get gold, I'd get commerce. I also couldn't buy stuff with gold until I either got a specific wonder (ie only one civ can do it), or until the late game. Without being able to buy stuff, I might as well just use all my surplus gold on science, except for the occasional unit upgrade.

In Civ5, with gold I can immediately buy units and buildings. I can bribe city states. I can buy tiles and expand my empire. I can buy research agreements. I can upgrade units. There's a lot more uses for it.


I think people's beef with Civ5 comes down to they hate how permanent decisions are. In Civ4, I can change civics on a whim, and I can completely change my gold/science/culture in the span of one turn. In Civ5, when I choose a policy, or lay down my infrastructure (ie tiles and buildings), it's harder to change my empire around in the other direction. Both systems have merits, and I think it's a lot of personal preferences rather than what is actually better.

Eberon
Oct 24, 2010, 05:05 PM
I think people's beef with Civ5 comes down to they hate how permanent decisions are.

This part at least is spot on from my point of view. I disagree with most of the rest of what you said but mainly about the only being able to buy things late in the game. Democracy is not that far down the tech tree and can be rushed pretty easily. I liked to play marathon games without the turn limits on. I consider not being able to gold rush production a problem I only experienced at the beginning of the game.

lschnarch
Oct 24, 2010, 05:12 PM
You appear to be working with a different definition of diplomacy. To you it means clear feedback, complete information and easily predicted outcomes.

Untrue.
To me, diplomacy means interacting with a certain probability of getting certain results.

This is not available in 0.V. The examples I have given above.

These are things that aren't very big in civ5 diplomacy, and I too think it would be better if they were more prominent, but the lack of those things does not mean there is no diplomacy.
If you cannot predict the result of your "negotiations", this actually means that there isn't any diplomacy.
What you do in Civ0.V is to pick one of typically two choices and ... You don't know what kind of impact that has.
You even don't have the cooperation and secrecy pacts listed in the diplomatic overview.
Obviously, because they are just meaningless.
Where is the notification "agreed not to settle near to XYZ"? It is not there, and that only leaves to assume that it is just meaningless.

Giving me examples of where an AI has acted not very rationally, or asking me to predict how something will affect an AI without other necessary information (like the situation in the game) is not going to prove your point.
Of course it is going to prove my point.

When there is no feedback about a certain action in the game, then it is meaningless.
To have no idea which of two available options to pick doesn't mean diplomacy, it does mean guesswork.

Why don't we wait til we get the c++ sdk source for the AI, maybe in a few months time, and if it's true that there's no diplomacy, we'll see an aweful lot of RNG rolls and empty functions in the diplomacy AI files. I bet they are just as detailed or complex as civ4's. (Note: that isn't necessary saying much positive about civ5, as civ4 did have some very simple and bare functions in its diplomacy code ;))
Why we don't wait?
Because this game should tell us about what we are doing.
We shouldn't be forced to analyze the coding to learn what a 25 year-old apprentice was dreaming of when he had smoked his third pipe.
It is just that easy.

They have put quite some effort and money into the leaders (at least they say so, although the appearance doesn't support this in many cases). For what, if "we" should wait for the code to learn what these nice moving pictures mean?

The shaferesque "diplomacy" is a design fault of epic dimensions.
You never leave the player without feedback. You just don't do it.

jjkrause84
Oct 24, 2010, 05:26 PM
Coming from a recent Civ4 game:

- Diplomacy was NOT super predicatable

- Sharing a religion did not mean the AI would not declare on you

- the information is absolutely key to making good decisions and knowing just how much an AI civ likes or dislikes you and why


This is at least what I'm noticing now having gone back to Civ4 after 60-ish hours of Civ5.

jjkrause84
Oct 24, 2010, 05:27 PM
double post...

Zechnophobe
Oct 24, 2010, 05:33 PM
Talk about an exploit and a dumbing down! "Are the crowds unhappy? Just move the culture slide upwards a bit!" "Is science lagging? Just live on a deficit for a time!" Now you actually have to check what is happening in your cities and with your trade. I know that the slide has been around since ur-Civ, and I think taking it out was long overdue.

You know what though? You couldn't do both of those at the same time! That required you to make a choice, and to potentially re-evaluate that choice, as time progressed. Not having gold around could cause problems if war broke out. Increasing happiness could be useful, but what short term cost was involved?

In both civ 4 and civ 5, you choose what buildings and improvements to make, and those contribute to culture, science, and gold. Only in civ 4 did you have a way to further modify those after the initial choices were made.

Celevin
Oct 24, 2010, 05:51 PM
Of course it is going to prove my point.

When there is no feedback about a certain action in the game, then it is meaningless.
To have no idea which of two available options to pick doesn't mean diplomacy, it does mean guesswork.
It isn't going to prove your point because it's anecdotal evidence. You can't cherry pick examples. I could find specific examples when Civ5 diplomacy works very well, when Civ4 diplomacy works very well, and when Civ4 diplomacy is complete rubbish.

Diplomacy does work when it's masked. Diplomacy between two players, for instance, is done this way in many games with nothing more than "Dude, if you do that I'm going to attack you". If you give players absolute clear transparency on discrete things (like if you go from -5 to -6 relations the AI will declare war), then players will create binds around those numbers. It makes for a very stale system. A bit of unknown leeway is good and makes the player take chances.


Also, it's hard to know if you're trying to prove a point or attempt provocation when you flower your posts with remarks like "Civ0.V", and "25 year-old apprentice was dreaming of when he had smoked his third pipe".

Celevin
Oct 24, 2010, 05:56 PM
This part at least is spot on from my point of view. I disagree with most of the rest of what you said but mainly about the only being able to buy things late in the game. Democracy is not that far down the tech tree and can be rushed pretty easily. I liked to play marathon games without the turn limits on. I consider not being able to gold rush production a problem I only experienced at the beginning of the game.
Fair enough. I think that it's a good decision to move gold buying to the start of the game instead, as it's integral in this version. In fact, I like all of my mechanisms available at the start for my choosing in games: I didn't like corporations as well because I found them too late in the game. For this reason, I dislike how policies are designed. I think all trees should be available right away, and all balanced around each other.

I suppose if I wanted the ability to completely change the shape of my empire on a whim, I'd like Civ4 more than Civ5. I like drastic, permanent decisions though; I find I'm creating some vastly different (but still functional) empires. All my Civ4 empires looked alike in my eyes.

Eberon
Oct 24, 2010, 06:39 PM
All my Civ4 empires looked alike in my eyes.

Thats how I feel about CiV.

Guardian_PL
Oct 24, 2010, 07:20 PM
It isn't going to prove your point because it's anecdotal evidence. You can't cherry pick examples. I could find specific examples when Civ5 diplomacy works very well, when Civ4 diplomacy works very well, and when Civ4 diplomacy is complete rubbish.

Diplomacy does work when it's masked. Diplomacy between two players, for instance, is done this way in many games with nothing more than "Dude, if you do that I'm going to attack you". If you give players absolute clear transparency on discrete things (like if you go from -5 to -6 relations the AI will declare war), then players will create binds around those numbers. It makes for a very stale system. A bit of unknown leeway is good and makes the player take chances.

Where did you get this stuff? Surely not from Civ4? All too often AI was DoWing at Cautious/Annoyed/Pleased, there was a lot of factors involved. How on Earth you can talk about "like if you go from -5 to -6 relations the AI will declare war" - that looks like you haven't even played civ4!

I honestly don't know where all civ5 fans are getting this idea of AI's behaviour/diplomacy in Civ4 from - it has nothing to do with the truth! Like they never played to win, not attacked the player when they could, and diplomacy was stale and predictable - that's just nonsense :crazyeye:

Egnarts
Oct 24, 2010, 08:34 PM
Thats how I feel about CiV.

Pretty much the same here, except, theres no empire feeling really. Civ5 maps is like ghost towns, throughout the entire game it's maybe a blob of your own culture and x dots of random culture(be it enemy capitals or CSs). Unlike previous civs, where the world was actually populated o.O

Where did you get this stuff? Surely not from Civ4? All too often AI was DoWing at Cautious/Annoyed/Pleased, there was a lot of factors involved. How on Earth you can talk about "like if you go from -5 to -6 relations the AI will declare war" - that looks like you haven't even played civ4!

I honestly don't know where all civ5 fans are getting this idea of AI's behaviour/diplomacy in Civ4 from - it has nothing to do with the truth! Like they never played to win, not attacked the player when they could, and diplomacy was stale and predictable - that's just nonsense :crazyeye:

I thought he was talking about civ5, I guess I was wrong.. Haha. Isn't that pretty much excatly how the AI behaves in civ5? Atleast that is how it feels to me, you reach some imaginary number and the AI will declare war on you, who cares if it stands a chance or not, it's still going to suicide on your sword.

Fair enough. I think that it's a good decision to move gold buying to the start of the game instead, as it's integral in this version. In fact, I like all of my mechanisms available at the start for my choosing in games: I didn't like corporations as well because I found them too late in the game. For this reason, I dislike how policies are designed. I think all trees should be available right away, and all balanced around each other.

Yeah, cause there wasnt any evolution going on in terms of goverments and the society throughout the whole history of humankind. We just woke up around 5000BC and had a notion of what communism was all about, social equallity likewise.

Celevin
Oct 24, 2010, 09:12 PM
Where did you get this stuff? Surely not from Civ4? All too often AI was DoWing at Cautious/Annoyed/Pleased, there was a lot of factors involved. How on Earth you can talk about "like if you go from -5 to -6 relations the AI will declare war" - that looks like you haven't even played civ4!

I honestly don't know where all civ5 fans are getting this idea of AI's behaviour/diplomacy in Civ4 from - it has nothing to do with the truth! Like they never played to win, not attacked the player when they could, and diplomacy was stale and predictable - that's just nonsense :crazyeye:
I wasn't talking about Civ4, nor Civ5. I was talking about discrete changes and transparency in general. There's posters that seem to want this. This is not a good thing.

I thought he was talking about civ5, I guess I was wrong.. Haha. Isn't that pretty much excatly how the AI behaves in civ5? Atleast that is how it feels to me, you reach some imaginary number and the AI will declare war on you, who cares if it stands a chance or not, it's still going to suicide on your sword.
How can you get that from what I said at all?


All I have said is that a combination of discrete numbers and absolute transparency is bad. People will hug diplomacy numbers the way they are currently hugging happiness numbers. It's uninteresting, and stale. A bit of ambiguity is a good thing, and will cause the players to take risks if they feel the benefits outweigh them.


Yeah, cause there wasnt any evolution going on in terms of goverments and the society throughout the whole history of humankind. We just woke up around 5000BC and had a notion of what communism was all about, social equallity likewise.
The whole thing was about permanent VS non-permanent changes, and what's more fun. I could care less about history, as it's not part of the game design. You make a mechanism first, then try and line it up after.

PieceOfMind
Oct 24, 2010, 09:55 PM
Untrue.
To me, diplomacy means interacting with a certain probability of getting certain results.

This is not available in 0.V. The examples I have given above.

If you cannot predict the result of your "negotiations", this actually means that there isn't any diplomacy. If you're playing a board game with friends and can't predict the outcome of another player (because human beings are free agents with free will), does that mean the game can't have any diplomacy? This is not entirely the best way to put it. You can still predict their response to some extent, but there is nothing stopping another player in a board game of doing something completely unexpected, especially in context of how they should be reacting given their past negotiations with you.
What you do in Civ0.V is to pick one of typically two choices and ... You don't know what kind of impact that has.

You don't know what impact it has? Use your imagination a bit.


You even don't have the cooperation and secrecy pacts listed in the diplomatic overview. Have you played the game with the latest patch? Those are now listed in the political overview.
Obviously, because they are just meaningless.Argument by intimidation: state something is obvious, despite not having proof.

Again, let's wait til the AI code gets released and we can have a look at this stuff. You think it will not factor into AI decision making at all? ;)

Do you want to commit to that statement, so that we can test it later?


Where is the notification "agreed not to settle near to XYZ"? It is not there, and that only leaves to assume that it is just meaningless.No, that just suggests a poor UI or lack of easily viewable information about your diplomatic interactions. It doesn't prove they have no impact.

It looks like you're basically suggesting that if a variable or factor is not present in the UI, then it can not possibly be considered by the AI in its decision making. Let me ask, are there any parts of your decision making that would not be obvious to the AIs? Does that mean that the AIs would be fair to claim (if they had a true voice) that diplomacy with you was meaningless, because you weren't telling them everything about how you made those decisions?

Of course it is going to prove my point.

When there is no feedback about a certain action in the game, then it is meaningless.
To have no idea which of two available options to pick doesn't mean diplomacy, it does mean guesswork.

Just because diplomacy involves more guesswork, doesn't mean that diplomacy is non-existent.



Why we don't wait?
Because this game should tell us about what we are doing.
We shouldn't be forced to analyze the coding to learn what a 25 year-old apprentice was dreaming of when he had smoked his third pipe.
It is just that easy.

They have put quite some effort and money into the leaders (at least they say so, although the appearance doesn't support this in many cases). For what, if "we" should wait for the code to learn what these nice moving pictures mean?

The shaferesque "diplomacy" is a design fault of epic dimensions.
You never leave the player without feedback. You just don't do it.

Ok, now I think we have revealed what your argument really is. You want feedback, and I do too. I think good feedback is just good game design. Games at their most basic level are about rewarding a player (via feedback) for the actions they take and the decisions they make. In civ5 diplomacy does not provide much tangible feedback from diplomatic interactions, and the ties between action and effect are too delayed or too mysterious to feel meaningful to the player. As a result, the system feels frustrating and the player is likely to simply not bother with considering diplomatic consequences because other aspects of the game do provide more tangible feedback and are more enjoyable to play.

None of this means there is no diplomacy. It just means it isn't very fitting for a fun game.


EDIT
Perhaps something that would help the discussion here, is if you could state explicitly in no uncertain times what it is you would change about diplomacy in civ5. In other words, don't just say "make it more transparent". Things like, you want to see the + or - modifiers with reasons for each leader you have diplomatic interactions with. Or you want to see in a mouse-hover what affect (+ or -) a response would have when an AI asks you for one. These are examples of what you might be looking for. Can you do that? (don't have to use my examples)

Do you want AIs to be one dimensional in the sense that all interactions either cause a + or - effect on the AI's 'state'. Humans don't work this way of course. They might consider other players to be more or less trustworthy, or cunning vs. foolish, or aggressive vs. friendly, or generous vs. greedy. Would it be OK if diplo interactions affected all sorts of different dimensions of an AI's opinion, or must they all effect just one universal (and unrealistic) number, all modifiers adding and subtracting to the same thing (which is essentially what civ4 boiled down to)?

Lone Wolf
Oct 24, 2010, 10:17 PM
Where did you get this stuff? Surely not from Civ4? All too often AI was DoWing at Cautious/Annoyed/Pleased...
I honestly don't know where all civ5 fans are getting this idea of AI's behaviour/diplomacy in Civ4 from - it has nothing to do with the truth! Like they never played to win, not attacked the player when they could, and diplomacy was stale and predictable - that's just nonsense

To be fair, someone who delved into XML files knew what AI's attack at Pleased and what don't (complicated by some factors). Random Personalities dealt with this problem, more or less, dunno why so many people who disliked the predictable AI never tried it.

Jolly Rogerer
Oct 24, 2010, 10:56 PM
I'm unclear about why people hated the slider. Was it the actual mechanic of the slider, or did they dislike being able to alter their budget allocations? If it was the latter, one could simply set the allocation at the beginning of the game and leave it, you weren't forced to take advantage of the flexibility.

lschnarch
Oct 25, 2010, 04:15 AM
It isn't going to prove your point because it's anecdotal evidence. You can't cherry pick examples. I could find specific examples when Civ5 diplomacy works very well, when Civ4 diplomacy works very well, and when Civ4 diplomacy is complete rubbish.
The examples which I gave are not "anecdotal examples" as anybody can prove it by himself.

Wait for the next time when an AI asks you not to settle close to its borders.
Then come back and tell me what this means:

Is it only related to founding new cities?
Does it include extension of your borders by culture?
Within what range (in hexes) aren't you allowed to settle by the terms of that treaty?
Does that only include the current area, or does the treaty include any other areas on the map as well?
Does an agreement in this matter in 3000 BC stand valid 1500 AD, still?
Constitutes the settling of the AI next to YOUR borders a violation of said treaty?
Is the AI (A) then considered a double-dealer by other AIs (B, C, D, ...)?

If you're playing a board game with friends and can't predict the outcome of another player (because human beings are free agents with free will), does that mean the game can't have any diplomacy? This is not entirely the best way to put it. You can still predict their response to some extent, but there is nothing stopping another player in a board game of doing something completely unexpected, especially in context of how they should be reacting given their past negotiations with you.
To this I agree and this is exactly why the attempt to mimic "human" players fails so bitterly.

With humans you typically always will have some kind of feedback. You see their facial expressions change, you can see (and interprete) their body language, you hear the tone of their voice change and after all, you LEARN a bit about how their reactions in total are changing due to your actions.
"Players". Humans in a game act very differently from how they would act in real life, since after all it is just a game.
Some are just backstabbing you for the fun of seeing the surprise and anger on your face, although such things they wouldn't do in a real life situation.
To do so in a game comes at no costs. To do so in a real life situation can spoil relationships for a lifetime.

I have to admit that I cannot interprete Monte's body language nor his tone when he is dancing in front of these fires. Bismarck is completely opaque as well, although in general I understand his words. But not his tone.
And so on.

You don't know what impact it has? Use your imagination a bit.
No, I don't know which impact which answer has. All I can IMAGINE is that the more polite answer MIGHT extend the time until they declare war on me.

Have you played the game with the latest patch? Those are now listed in the political overview.Argument by intimidation: state something is obvious, despite not having proof.
I am referring to these items here:
a) deal history
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=270123&stc=1&d=1287999343

b) global policies
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=270124&stc=1&d=1287999343

I agree and stand corrected, the cooperation pact is displayed.
This makes it an UI problem, because now I have to check to screens to get the information.
Still, I don't have any chance to retrieve such information when being in "diplomatic negotiations" (especially not if dealing about a third nation). I have to have an external overview at hand (or to keep my games from the last two weeks with all their different aspects in memory). Once again, an UI issue.

Again, let's wait til the AI code gets released and we can have a look at this stuff. You think it will not factor into AI decision making at all? ;)
I don't have any clue what factors into AI's decisions. I don't have any clue to which degree certain actions of mine factor.
And I am pretty sure you don't know either at the current moment.

What I know is that I have been confronted with all kind of remarks:

Your military is weak, so I declare war on you
Your military is strong, so I declare war on you
You have settled next to my borders, so I declare war on you (after I have settled)
You have settlede next to my borders, so I declare war on you (after THEY have settled)
You are so puny, so I declare war on you
You are so big, so I declare war on you

End of story: "Whatever you've done, I declare war on you"
Well, that's a funny, interesting and compelling diplomacy, offering me so many options to influence the other nations, isn't it?

Then we have other things like me asking say Suleiman to war with me against say Monte, which he declines. So far, so good.
The very next turn Suleiman declares war on Monte. Hm hm... sounds like a very logical and comprehensable way of acting, doesn't it?
The same it is when meeting another leader for the first time. Ever tried to form a pact of cooperation with him? Doesn't work THAT turn, yet the very next turn he may show up and offer what? A pact of cooperation!

What kind of "diplomacy" is this?


No, that just suggests a poor UI or lack of easily viewable information about your diplomatic interactions. It doesn't prove they have no impact.
Once again: if I as the human player am not supported by feedback there isn't any difference to random choices. Behind those there would be impact as well, but still I don't know it.

It looks like you're basically suggesting that if a variable or factor is not present in the UI, then it can not possibly be considered by the AI in its decision making. Let me ask, are there any parts of your decision making that would not be obvious to the AIs? Does that mean that the AIs would be fair to claim (if they had a true voice) that diplomacy with you was meaningless, because you weren't telling them everything about how you made those decisions?
Do either of us know if our actions are really taken into consideration by the AI?
As you said in your previoius posting, we might know after checking with the coding. At the moment, we are left in the dark and wondering what is going on.

What about the occasional scout claiming your troops at the other end of your empire to be a thread to them?
Does this have an impact on their decisions (apart from being so ridiculous)?

Just because diplomacy involves more guesswork, doesn't mean that diplomacy is non-existent.
Once again: yes, it does mean exactly this.
There may be an impact of my actions, but I don't have any chance to identify that impact, thus rendering my actions as meaningless as random choices.
Diplomacy is not about random choices. It is about "I give you this, you give me that" with the chance to evaluate both parties' actions.


Ok, now I think we have revealed what your argument really is. You want feedback, and I do too. I think good feedback is just good game design. Games at their most basic level are about rewarding a player (via feedback) for the actions they take and the decisions they make. In civ5 diplomacy does not provide much tangible feedback from diplomatic interactions, and the ties between action and effect are too delayed or too mysterious to feel meaningful to the player. As a result, the system feels frustrating and the player is likely to simply not bother with considering diplomatic consequences because other aspects of the game do provide more tangible feedback and are more enjoyable to play.
Exactly.
Diplomacy is ALL ABOUT getting feedback.
I don't mind to have frauds in the game. I don't mind being backstabbed from time to time (and preferrably not by all leaders in almost the same way).

What I do MIND is having no clue what is going on, not getting feedback. This renders "diplomacy" obsolete as I don't have any meaningful way to learn about the impact of my actions.
At the current state I could as well throw a coin.

EDIT
Perhaps something that would help the discussion here, is if you could state explicitly in no uncertain times what it is you would change about diplomacy in civ5. In other words, don't just say "make it more transparent". Things like, you want to see the + or - modifiers with reasons for each leader you have diplomatic interactions with.
The very least which I would expect is to have my "advisor" pop up and telling me: "Sir, we have an agreement not to settle next to the [insert name]. If you proceed, it may make them angry with us, thus making deals more unlikely or even leading to a declaration of war [based on an "estimation" of the current relationships]"

This would be some kind of indirect feedback allowing me to consider my planned actions.
Furthermore, I would like to see some modificators for such settling in case of grabbing important resources by doing so.
For instance, if I would have agreed not to settle next to Ramses, but by doing so I grab the first iron resource (while he already would have say 5 iron) then he should show up with a message like "We have observed you breaking our no-settlement agreement to get vital resources. Although we respect that, the violation of our agreement makes us concerned about your trustworthiness"

Napoleon under the same conditions might come up with the message "The Grand Nation consideres your action of settling next to our borders a violation of our agreements. We therefore consider all current agreements obsolete"
... and so on.


Do you want AIs to be one dimensional in the sense that all interactions either cause a + or - effect on the AI's 'state'. Humans don't work this way of course. They might consider other players to be more or less trustworthy, or cunning vs. foolish, or aggressive vs. friendly, or generous vs. greedy. Would it be OK if diplo interactions affected all sorts of different dimensions of an AI's opinion, or must they all effect just one universal (and unrealistic) number, all modifiers adding and subtracting to the same thing (which is essentially what civ4 boiled down to)?
As I tried to explain already (and I stay with the settling), such an action by me should have some impact to any other leader.
The way in which they react according to this action should be considered differently based on the "individual" nature of the leader, our current diplomatic relationship, whether I am blocking him or whether he's still got much space to expand, whether I take a vital resource which he hasn't got yet and so on.

PieceOfMind
Oct 25, 2010, 06:09 AM
Ok.

Your view is that there is no diplomacy in civ5. My view is that there is. Whether you or I like the way it is implemented I don't particularly care to argue.

You seem to have picked a non-standard meaning for diplomacy, which makes it hard to argue about the same thing.

r_rolo1
Oct 25, 2010, 06:17 AM
To be honest , both are using non-standart definitions of diplomacy :p
Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture, environment and human rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner
Using this definition there is no diplomacy in any of the civ games ( no treaties negotiated by diplomats :D ), but if you pick the informal version ... I have to agree with lschnarch partly , there is no discernible ( not meaning that it isn't there ) AI diplomacy at parts of the game, since the AI actions don't seem to be geared towards either to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge ;)

Öjevind Lång
Oct 25, 2010, 06:19 AM
We have read so many complaints about how poorly warfare was implemented in Civ4. Yet, it was not cut in Civ0.V.?

The term "Civ0.V" has apparently been coined as a derogatory name by those who simply have decided that they hate Civ V. Let me respectfully suggest that since this is so, you'd be happier posting about how cool Civ IV is in the proper forum, which is the one for Civ IV. Not to mention that there are some here who get fed up with your incessant, inconstructive whining.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 25, 2010, 06:22 AM
Removal of the slider is one of the best features of Civ5. Why was it in Civ4? Wait, why was it in Civ3?!

Probably because it's been around since Civ I, and no designer ever before thought of what a rather tacky, simplistic mechanism it is.

Let me add a general plea, one directed to everybody. Would you please refrain from flamebait such as writing "Civ.0.V" or writing about Jon Shafer as if he should be hanged, drawn and quartered? I think he's done a good job, and that Civ V is no worse than Civ IV when first published. It's just different from Civ IV, not inferior. Of course, basically it all comes down to what one prefers.

Lone Wolf
Oct 25, 2010, 06:40 AM
No! Shafer Consolization Dumbed Down 0.0V needs to get exactly what it deserves! :lol:

DavidPBacon
Oct 25, 2010, 06:55 AM
Well, my view is that sliders are not in the game but somewhat their effects(or mechanism) are. You just have to do much more work to adjust how the resources of your economy are distributed. Sliders make it easier and in a way that makes sense. You have access to the resources of your economy and may distribute them at will. This how it works in real life, but it's just more complex in RL. The history of economy is full of examples of change of distribution and economy policy.
In Civ you just have a simplification of the way you research stuff, but IMO is just a case of gameplay>realism, cause for the majority of players (not me, I like more details and Micro) having the way it is real life, that is, with no direct control of the research pace and direction would be boring and tedious. In that simplification, you can allocate resources to speed up your research in both versions. In Civ IV you adjust a slider. In Civ V you adjust city focus. I prefer Civ IV way cause it gives you control and it means less tedious work. To say one is realistic and the other is not is pointless, cause both are unrealistic.

El Caballerion
Oct 25, 2010, 11:04 PM
I never found the slider compelling, since just setting it to the max science your empire could support was pretty much always correct. Might as well have automated it.

Agreed. Sliders were kinda pointless.

Roxlimn
Oct 26, 2010, 01:58 PM
PieceOfMind:

To be fair, it seems to me that all the players who complain about the Diplomacy AI actually have a feel for what's triggering the responses - they just don't like it. For instance, it's quite obvious to me that having borders adjacent to AIs makes them more likely to be hostile, regardless of who they are. The solution is to not expand, if you want the AIs to be friendlier. In fact, people who play 1 city challenges have occasions where the game is too boring because the AI won't declare war, even when the player is on the verge of imminent victory.

Players know that having a much smaller army count predisposes the AI (and therefore all Deity and Immortals AIs by dint of their huge armies) to attack you. But they insist on having small armies with big promotions or tech advantages. And then they get mad when the AIs get aggressive. They know, but they don't like it.

It is possible to have interesting diplomacy with the AIs, but not when you're a bloodthristy Civ out to conquer the world, or a small civ on AI borders which it perceives as weak and/or useless.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 26, 2010, 02:07 PM
So Rox you are stating tha expansion, building and pacifism are rotten in this game and drive the Ai to attack you.

By the way Mongolian Empire is cool and powerful, i took over my continent on Immortal level just with four horseman and a khan! It looks loke the real Golden Horde!:D

Roxlimn
Oct 26, 2010, 02:17 PM
JLoZeppeli:

Not directly. I'm saying that something that Immortal and Deity players are doing, or something in the settings, is predisposing the AIs to be more hostile than it should be. The AI doesn't declare war all the time, when I play, so it's not inherent to the AI coding.

Eskel
Oct 26, 2010, 02:59 PM
I liked visible diplomacy modifiers in Civ4. I could go however with hidden diplo stats, but under one condition.
There should be a possibility of gaining information on diplomatic attitudes in descriptive form. In RL, when you have a problem with somebody or want to make a deal/improve relations, you can ask what irks your partner.
Diplomacy is full of subtle messages, that allow you to make reasonable claims and offers.
Full info probably kills the immersity. But ripping it completely off - kills strategy, and then immersity as well. So far, I choose the lesser of two evils (for me), and prefer full info.

Additionaly, I'd like to see making more deals possible.
I dont like pact of cooperations, city-state bribes or research pacts as they are handled in Civ5. That said, I have to admit I didn't like tech trading or tech conquering in Civ1-4.
All above are too much artificial for me.
I loved research pact and commercial unions that gave temporal bonuses to both sides in SMAC. Always wanted them included in Civ series. I like slow building of relations. Long period of peace, trade agreement, open borders, research pact - relation improve. This should apply also to City-States: long time peace, cooperation, joint war effort should be factors that will grant positive influence.
If devs want to make Civ great game still, they should create AI that will behave more human way. Ah, and before somebody will say he has enough backstabbing in MP - diplomatic info should also include opinions of former behaviour of particular AI, making untrustworthy civs more and more isolated over time, what should be appropriate penalty.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 26, 2010, 03:52 PM
I don't need to see modifier, bu i will be pleased with a diplomatic use of the old beautiful embassy (a real blast from the past). Please give me embassy again to have some information on the quality of the reletionship, not numeric, but at least with some hint to make diplomacy worth of it... Now not only i can't understand at all the AI, but my relationship with them are too plain and silly, and with little poor management of the Ai desires and personalities (too similar, i quite don't see difference at all between Caterina or Nobunaga...).

Roxlimn
Oct 26, 2010, 04:09 PM
JLoZeppeli:

I don't know how it is with your game, but in my games, I can always tell when the AI is friendly or not - it has to do with the greeting statements and the animations. The AIs also make a habit of telling you what's pissing them off. They tell me when they think my army is weak. I buff my army. Relations improve.

It's hard to do anything about border tensions, but getting into RAs and luxury trades tends to soften that a good deal, especially when you can point to a third Civ that's a bigger boogeyman. If you're the biggest Civ on the block, well then, there's just no helping that - you're going to make everyone nervous.

Caterina tends to like luxury deals. I notice she softens a bit faster when we're trading in luxuries, though that might be just my perception. She's a little untrustworthy, though, compared to Ramkhanhaeng and Gandhi. Nobunaga seems to like Pacts and things. Haven't been in enough games with him to get a bead on his personality.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 27, 2010, 02:35 AM
JLoZeppeli:

I don't know how it is with your game, but in my games, I can always tell when the AI is friendly or not - it has to do with the greeting statements and the animations. The AIs also make a habit of telling you what's pissing them off. They tell me when they think my army is weak. I buff my army. Relations improve.

It's hard to do anything about border tensions, but getting into RAs and luxury trades tends to soften that a good deal, especially when you can point to a third Civ that's a bigger boogeyman. If you're the biggest Civ on the block, well then, there's just no helping that - you're going to make everyone nervous.

Caterina tends to like luxury deals. I notice she softens a bit faster when we're trading in luxuries, though that might be just my perception. She's a little untrustworthy, though, compared to Ramkhanhaeng and Gandhi. Nobunaga seems to like Pacts and things. Haven't been in enough games with him to get a bead on his personality.

My impression from the games where I met him is that Oda Nobunaga is very honourable. As long as you play straight with him and do trade and research deals he won't attack you - unless your army is completely pathetic.

OTOH, I hate George Washington. What a sanctimonious git. I always cheer when some other civ takes him out.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 27, 2010, 03:11 AM
JLoZeppeli:

I don't know how it is with your game, but in my games, I can always tell when the AI is friendly or not - it has to do with the greeting statements and the animations. The AIs also make a habit of telling you what's pissing them off. They tell me when they think my army is weak. I buff my army. Relations improve.

It's hard to do anything about border tensions, but getting into RAs and luxury trades tends to soften that a good deal, especially when you can point to a third Civ that's a bigger boogeyman. If you're the biggest Civ on the block, well then, there's just no helping that - you're going to make everyone nervous.

Caterina tends to like luxury deals. I notice she softens a bit faster when we're trading in luxuries, though that might be just my perception. She's a little untrustworthy, though, compared to Ramkhanhaeng and Gandhi. Nobunaga seems to like Pacts and things. Haven't been in enough games with him to get a bead on his personality.

Caterina out of blue asked me gift when we barely meet each other (silver that i had 1)... The next turn she declares war.... And at the same time Ghandi after the first meeting, like he was a Caterine follower... Obviuosly, on Immortal level, i crushed them all (it was early and was using Alexander...), then all the other civs, and so the losers, call me bloodthirsty... And i'm not speaking of when someone asks me to put my butt in a war togheter and after that they speak to me as an enemy....Or when i freed France from Shongai, and then they made a pact of reserch with their former oppressors and after 25 turns declared togheter war on me....

If you can call it diplomacy, we can have some madmen as foreign ministers in the real world, ehi they can be very diplomatic!:lol:

Roxlimn
Oct 27, 2010, 11:25 AM
JLoZeppeli:

As I mentioned, I think the inflated army sizes (among other things) of the AI at Immortal is causing the diplomatic AI to behave in unforeseen ways. Immortal, after all, is kind of a niche difficulty level. Most players don't play Immortal, so I imagine that the game wasn't too well tested there.

Catherine likes gifts and luxuries and trades. As long as you give them to her, she's happy and friendly. She doesn't like it when you don't give in to her requests. I think the diplomacy at Immortal would make a lot more sense to Immortal players if all the AIs had a +1000% military unit bonus.

Ricci
Oct 27, 2010, 08:02 PM
Talk about an exploit and a dumbing down! "Are the crowds unhappy? Just move the culture slide upwards a bit!" "Is science lagging? Just live on a deficit for a time!" Now you actually have to check what is happening in your cities and with your trade. I know that the slide has been around since ur-Civ, and I think taking it out was long overdue.

Lång, what do you mean the slide is gone?

Abegweit
Oct 27, 2010, 08:23 PM
Lång, what do you mean the slide is gone?

The word is "slider" and it refers to breaking down your income between money, research and possibly other things. Every version of Civ since the beginning has revolved around a balance between maintenance/growth of your empire on the one hand and research into more advanced technologies on the other.

Except for the latest one.

The OP apparently thinks it is superior to base research on population while neutering any method but the crudest to increase your money. I have no clue why he believes this. I can think of a couple of explanations for this strange notion but none of them are charitable.

Ricci
Oct 27, 2010, 08:37 PM
The word is "slider" and it refers to breaking down your income between money, research and possibly other things. Every version of Civ since the beginning has revolved around a balance between maintenance/growth of your empire on the one hand and research into more advanced technologies on the other.
Except for the latest one.


Oh I see!! He must be still playing civ V (better known as plain Shafer's V by many).
Thanks for your time Abeg.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 27, 2010, 09:04 PM
Lång, what do you mean the slide is gone?

I mean the slider that existed in all previous versions of Civ - the one where you decided how much of your money should be devoted to science, to culture or to increasing your money supply. It's gone in Civ V. Instead, you go to your cities and instruct them about what to generate, and that may differ from one city to another. One can let some of them concentrate on generating science, others generate money and so on. I genuinely enjoy this system more. Previously, the standard trick was to maximize research by running a deficit as often and as much as was possible.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 27, 2010, 09:08 PM
Oh I see!! He must be still playing civ V (better known as plain Shafer's V by many).
Thanks for your time Abeg.

Let me ask you one thing: Why do you spend your time flaming Civ V in the Civ V forums instead of discussing Civ IV in the Civ IV forums - or playing Civ IV?

As for Abeg, he should learn some common courtesy. Implying that someone is stupid because they have another opinion is behaviour one expects from a nine year old kid, not from someone who is reasonably mature. Also, I do wonder what is so terribly sophisticated about moving a slider back and forth.

Zechnophobe
Oct 27, 2010, 09:11 PM
I mean the slider that existed in all previous versions of Civ - the one where you decided how much of your money should be devoted to science, to culture or to increasing your money supply. It's gone in Civ V. Instead, you go to your cities and instruct them about what to generate, and that may differ from one city to another. One can let some of them concentrate on generating science, others generate money and so on. I genuinely enjoy this system more. Previously, the standard trick was to maximize research by running a deficit as often and as much as was possible.

In what ways can you influence science production in civ 5, in a way that didn't exist in civ 4?

I Cannot think of even one.
Specialists? Done it
Population? Not QUITE as directly, but also done in civ 4
Buildings? Done
Social Policies? Civics!
Research Agreements? Tech trading
Great Scientist builds Academy improvement? Great scientist builds Academy Building.
Bulb? Bulb!

What can you do in civ 4 that you can't in civ 5?
Everything else that effected your economy
Slider

You haven't really added anything to 5 by removing the slider, you've just taken away a knob to tune.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 27, 2010, 09:13 PM
In what ways can you influence science production in civ 5, in a way that didn't exist in civ 4?

I Cannot think of even one.
Specialists? Done it
Population? Not QUITE as directly, but also done in civ 4
Buildings? Done
Social Policies? Civics!
Research Agreements? Tech trading
Great Scientist builds Academy improvement? Great scientist builds Academy Building.
Bulb? Bulb!

What can you do in civ 4 that you can't in civ 5?
Everything else that effected your economy
Slider

You haven't really added anything to 5 by removing the slider, you've just taken away a knob to tune.

You've removed an oversimplified mechanism of the kind that Civ V is constantly criticized for by some. But when such a primitive device existed in Civ IV it suddenly becomes holy.

Zechnophobe
Oct 27, 2010, 09:17 PM
The slider ADDED complexity because it was another thing to deal with. I don't see how you are missing this. If you have a chocolate bar, and a tub full of Crisco, you have more choices for dinner than if you just have the chocolate bar.

Saying it is more simplified in Civ 4, would be like saying that trade routes in 4 were simpler because you don't have to pay for roads.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 27, 2010, 09:31 PM
The slider ADDED complexity because it was another thing to deal with. I don't see how you are missing this. If you have a chocolate bar, and a tub full of Crisco, you have more choices for dinner than if you just have the chocolate bar.

Saying it is more simplified in Civ 4, would be like saying that trade routes in 4 were simpler because you don't have to pay for roads.

Remind me never to dine at your home. :) As for "one more thing to deal with", having more things to do isn't necessarily better. The things to do should not be oversimplified props. And indeed, trade routes were simpler in Civ IV for precisely the reason you mention.

Zechnophobe
Oct 27, 2010, 09:39 PM
Remind me never to dine at your home. :)

But..we just warmed the tub up and... dangit okay. Chocolate Bar again tonight.



As for "one more thing to deal with", having more things to do isn't necessarily better. The things to do should not be oversimplified props. And indeed, trade routes were simpler in Civ IV for precisely the reason you mention.

[/quote]

More things to do isn't necessarily better. I completely agree. However your accusation was that the argument that civ 5 is less complex was not being consistent. I have refuted based on that the slider was more complex than no slider. Even if you like it gone, the argument is still consistent.

Trade routes in 5 are so much less interesting, it brings a tear to my eye. 1.25 per population? I Mean, we have 1 Science per population, and 1.25 gold per population. The only additional thing is that the road cost is subtracted. So you won't make much until you grow to be a massive size THREE city. It isn't like that cost makes trade routing all your cities ever not completely worth while.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 27, 2010, 09:43 PM
But..we just warmed the tub up and... dangit okay. Chocolate Bar again tonight.





More things to do isn't necessarily better. I completely agree. However your accusation was that the argument that civ 5 is less complex was not being consistent. I have refuted based on that the slider was more complex than no slider. Even if you like it gone, the argument is still consistent.

Trade routes in 5 are so much less interesting, it brings a tear to my eye. 1.25 per population? I Mean, we have 1 Science per population, and 1.25 gold per population. The only additional thing is that the road cost is subtracted. So you won't make much until you grow to be a massive size THREE city. It isn't like that cost makes trade routing all your cities ever not completely worth while.[/QUOTE]

The slider is not more complex than no slider. You might just as well say that a teddy bear in your girl friend's car is more complex than no teddy bear.

Zechnophobe
Oct 27, 2010, 09:44 PM
More things to do isn't necessarily better. I completely agree. However your accusation was that the argument that civ 5 is less complex was not being consistent. I have refuted based on that the slider was more complex than no slider. Even if you like it gone, the argument is still consistent.

Trade routes in 5 are so much less interesting, it brings a tear to my eye. 1.25 per population? I Mean, we have 1 Science per population, and 1.25 gold per population. The only additional thing is that the road cost is subtracted. So you won't make much until you grow to be a massive size THREE city. It isn't like that cost makes trade routing all your cities ever not completely worth while.

The slider is not more complex than no slider. You might just as well say that a teddy bear in your girl friend's car is more complex than no teddy bear.

It is, if I have the option to give it to her or not.

Eberon
Oct 27, 2010, 09:58 PM
The slider is not more complex than no slider. You might just as well say that a teddy bear in your girl friend's car is more complex than no teddy bear.

So you are argueing that a teddy bear in your girlfriend's car is no more complex than no teddy bear? I think you just lost an argument with that one.

PieceOfMind
Oct 27, 2010, 10:13 PM
What does complexity mean?

And may I ask, to all those who appear to love complexity like it's all that matters to a game, do you realise that all civ games to date (including civ4!) are extremely simple compared to any serious strategy game? Much of the charm of the civ series comes from its simplicity - not its complexity. For example, what do mines in civ games produce? +x:c5production:. Is that not hugely offensive to you?

Nick Carpathia
Oct 27, 2010, 10:59 PM
The slider ADDED complexity because it was another thing to deal with. I don't see how you are missing this. If you have a chocolate bar, and a tub full of Crisco, you have more choices for dinner than if you just have the chocolate bar.

Saying it is more simplified in Civ 4, would be like saying that trade routes in 4 were simpler because you don't have to pay for roads.
____________
Civ 5 is like that girl who LOOKS LIKE that girl in High School you had a crush on. She's pretty, and you really want to like her a lot. You go on some dates, and maybe try to 'Score Big' with her. Ultimately though, no amount of wanting her to be the other girl will help, and she's actually kind of shallow.

So you uninstall her and complain about her to your friends. Or... hmm, something.



There is not a single metaphor in this that is not absolutely hilarious.

TheBlackAdderBG
Oct 28, 2010, 12:48 AM
What does complexity mean?

And may I ask, to all those who appear to love complexity like it's all that matters to a game, do you realise that all civ games to date (including civ4!) are extremely simple compared to any serious strategy game? Much of the charm of the civ series comes from its simplicity - not its complexity. For example, what do mines in civ games produce? +x:c5production:. Is that not hugely offensive to you?

This is because you know the game well and the things that for you are not complex for others are.;)
I can extend your example about the mines,yes the give just +1 hammers ,but with Bureaucracy in Capitol they give +1.5 hammers or whit State Property they give +1.1 hammers.I think this is kinda complex :)

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 01:28 AM
This is because you know the game well and the things that for you are not complex for others are.;)
I can extend your example about the mines,yes the give just +1 hammers ,but with Bureaucracy in Capitol they give +1.5 hammers or whit State Property they give +1.1 hammers.I think this is kinda complex :)

+2:hammers:, and those are city-level production modifiers, not modifiers of the mine's output. The mine got +1:hammers: from a railroad, but that's it IIRC. (EDIT... Oh, and commerce/hammers if it was a resource)

In any case, it's still incredibly simple, and civ5 does similar things. e.g. +1:c5production: to lumbermills with a later tech, +2:c5science: to trading posts with a social policy.

TheBlackAdderBG
Oct 28, 2010, 01:47 AM
yes +2,but not always.If build mine on gems it gives +1 and on coal +3.And when there are "city-level production modifiers" and "modifiers of the mine's output" i think is a sign for complexity.

joyous_gard
Oct 28, 2010, 04:35 AM
yes +2,but not always.If build mine on gems it gives +1 and on coal +3.And when there are "city-level production modifiers" and "modifiers of the mine's output" i think is a sign for complexity.

Real life is complex. At least in Civ IV there was some reasoning behind the complexity. It was attempted to tie in to the real world and mankind's civilization.

Civ V is oversimplified and is not in anyway connected to real life. Spam trading posts for 4,000 years. Trading posts get +2 science if you get a social policy. How can that even be related to the real world?

I used to view the Civilization series as a model of the real world and mankind's civilization. With the latest installment, I can't say that about the series.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:02 AM
Removing the slider is a great idea.

Micromanaging sliders was another Civ 4 stupidity, along with stacks of doom.

Things like that are the reasons why Civ 5 is so superior to Civ 4.

Guardian_PL
Oct 28, 2010, 07:07 AM
Removing the slider is a great idea.

Micromanaging sliders was another Civ 4 stupidity, along with stacks of doom.

Things like that are the reasons why Civ 5 is so superior to Civ 4.
:lol:
"micromanaging sliders", that's a good one! :lol:

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:09 AM
Every turn you changed the slider. Hence it's micromanagement. Tedious and boring.

Do you need more help ? Feel free to ask. :)

Lone Wolf
Oct 28, 2010, 07:10 AM
The slider ADDED complexity because it was another thing to deal with.

So, if the distinction between Food and Hammers will be removed, replaced by "natural resources", or Foodammers, and each of your cities gains a Foodammers slider, that converts food into hammers and vice versa, will that be a good addition to the genre?

I'm not necessary against the slider, I'm just trying to say that not every "converter" is a good, complex mechanics.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:12 AM
Everything tedious and boring should be removed in my opinion.

That's why removing this slider and stacks of doom was a great idea.

I couldn't even finish a Civ 4 game because micromanaging sliders and hundreds of units became boring and tedious.

I can finish and enjoy every single Civ 5 game now.

Lone Wolf
Oct 28, 2010, 07:14 AM
Every turn you changed the slider.

No one usually changed the slider every turn. Why would you want to do that? It was typically either max science, with more focus on gold (often plainly max gold) during the phrases where you would need it (like preparing for a massive units upgrade).

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 07:15 AM
Everything tedious and boring should be removed in my opinion.

That's why removing this slider and stacks of doom was a great idea.

I couldn't even finish a Civ 4 game because micromanaging sliders and hundreds of units became boring and tedious.

I can finish and enjoy every single Civ 5 game now.

You haven't finished a game on Civ IV and are you ranting everywhere against civ IV veterans??:eek:

Please, play civ IV before making statement without any base....

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:17 AM
I mean "In the end, after a while, I couldn't finish Civ 4 games."

Looked pretty obvious to me...

Don't make me laugh, I won Civ 4 games at immortal / emperor level.

I even worked a bit on Civ4 BetterAI

Stupid attack really, stay on point.

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 07:19 AM
Every turn you changed the slider. Hence it's micromanagement. Tedious and boring.

Do you need more help ? Feel free to ask. :)

You changed the slider every turn? :lol:
Well, that explains a lot. :D

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:21 AM
@lschnarch : technically you had to change it a lot, to optimize your game.

Hence it's tedious and boring. ;)

Look I can use smileys too :

:)
:)
:)
:)

Lone Wolf
Oct 28, 2010, 07:24 AM
@lschnarch : technically you had to change it a lot, to optimize your game.

To optimize your game, you usually run max sci, with occasional forays to max gold. Your economy doesn't usually changes between turns so radically that you need to readjust your slider.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 07:25 AM
I mean "In the end, after a while, I couldn't finish Civ 4 games."

Looked pretty obvious to me...

Don't make me laugh, I won Civ 4 games at immortal / emperor level.

I even worked a bit on Civ4 BetterAI

Stupid attack really, stay on point.

not obvious, if you say that you couldn't even finish a Civ 4 game, it means that you never finished a game before....

So i accept the correction that you made yourself, and next time be more clear and write it right.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:26 AM
Even if you change it only 20 times a game it's boring.

I much prefer the new social policy system, at least when you make mistakes you pay for it now.

You don't just switch the slider. Boring mechanics are boring.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:27 AM
not obvious, if you say that you haven't even finished a Civ 4 game, it means that you never finished a game before....

So i accept the correction that you made yourself, and next time be more clear and write it right.

Wow, we have an English language master here, congrats.

I'm a foreigner, so please excuse me.

To the point, I finished dozens of Civ 4 games, so yeah, the point is invalid.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 07:28 AM
Wow, we have an English language master here, congrats.

I'm a foreigner, so please excuse me.

To the point, I finished dozens of Civ 4 games, so yeah, the point is invalid.

i'm italian, english is not my native language too...:)

Cheers

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 07:29 AM
Look I can use smileys too :

:)
:)
:)
:)

You see, you've already learned something. Keep on, it will become even better.

And btw, you didn't have to change the slider that often. But *if* you had to adjust something in the relation between commerce and science, then indeed it was a convenient way to do.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:29 AM
Now I feel you're right. On topic now ?

Lone Wolf
Oct 28, 2010, 07:31 AM
Even if you change it only 20 times a game it's boring.

No more then changing anything else, to me.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 07:31 AM
You see, you've already learned something. Keep on, it will become even better.

And btw, you didn't have to change the slider that often. But *if* you had to adjust something in the relation between commerce and science, then indeed it was a convenient way to do.

Then indeed you just switched you Civ from something to something else in a blink of an eye.

No consequence from past bad choices.

Now ? It's not possible anymore. Switching social policies is limited.

Hence more depth in your past decisions.

I like it a lot. My 2 cents.

TheBlackAdderBG
Oct 28, 2010, 07:59 AM
And now if you want to change focus to gold,science or culture you must go through all cities ,then click to open building menu to see where to place pops.How this is not "tedious and boring",but just 1-2 clicks on slider is?

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 08:03 AM
That wouldn't be smart. The game is made to make you weight your decision.

You shouldn't try to switch to gold or something else your cities are not specialized too.

You only build SOME buildings in each city due to building maintenance, once again to make you weight your decisions.

It will be extremely inefficient to switch every city to things they don't have the buildings needed for.

It's just not the spirit of Civ 5 to do so. It's inefficient.

DavidPBacon
Oct 28, 2010, 08:03 AM
Then indeed you just switched you Civ from something to something else in a blink of an eye.

No consequence from past bad choices.

Now ? It's not possible anymore. Switching social policies is limited.

Hence more depth in your past decisions.

I like it a lot. My 2 cents.

Yes there were consequences if you chose your resource distribution wrong. You could end up backwards in Tech. You could be short in money in the brink of a war, needing it to Upgrade units, buy Allies and depending on your civics, rushing units.

I really don't know why someone is happy that a level of control is taken form them. Specially in a game where management part of the gameplay.
Besides, like someone already said, all the tools to influence your economy are in both Civ IV and V. It's only the distribution you can't mess with anymore. This means more work, wich is tedious. The end results are the same.

Unthinking Pain
Oct 28, 2010, 08:04 AM
Eh, you can use the "Focus" radial buttons and get a fair amount of econ adjustment without a huge amount of work. They work pretty well now, imo.

I mean, in either Civ, if you really want to optimize exactly what your econ is doing, you end up having to go in and move civilians around city by city.

klokwerk
Oct 28, 2010, 08:07 AM
Fun and depth is not about "levels of controls".

Social policies added depth, so did city states. Having too many "levels of controls" would make the game boring and tedious.

Plus, as I said earlier, it's not the philisophy here. Civ 4 is about switching policies constantly, Civ 5 is about weighting your decisions (at least on the global policies side)

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 08:08 AM
Eh, you can use the "Focus" radial buttons and get a fair amount of econ adjustment without a huge amount of work. They work pretty well now, imo.

I mean, in either Civ, if you really want to optimize exactly what your econ is doing, you end up having to go in and move civilians around city by city.

Except for the fact that the city governor seems to have been spoiled with the latest patch, IOW may let your cities starve.

TheBlackAdderBG
Oct 28, 2010, 08:14 AM
Fun and depth is not about "levels of controls".

Social policies added depth, so did city states. Having too many "levels of controls" would make the game boring and tedious.

Plus, as I said earlier, it's not the philisophy here. Civ 4 is about switching policies constantly, Civ 5 is about weighting your decisions (at least on the global policies side)

Agree.If you don't have to micro the city tiles ,then the only thing to do is war.:p

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 08:24 AM
:lol:
"micromanaging sliders", that's a good one! :lol:

While I don't really agree with what klokwerk is arguing here, I must add that it is indeed possible to micronmanage the sliders. I do it in PBEM games all the time.

It's maybe not quite accurate to describe it as micro, but certainly managing it every turn (or just most turns) you can squeeze the extra few beakers that you need. It's more useful earlier in the game than later - later on is when the effect of rounding relative to the size of the beaker and gold income becomes small.

No one usually changed the slider every turn. Why would you want to do that? It was typically either max science, with more focus on gold (often plainly max gold) during the phrases where you would need it (like preparing for a massive units upgrade).

A possible example. Suppose you have 4 libraries all about to finish next turn, and currently you have the science slider at 50%. Put it to 0% and let the libraries complete, and then put it to 100% after the libraries complete, if only for a turn. Just over the course of two turns, you could gain several extra beakers that way. Admittedly it is micromanagement in the extreme, and would rarely produce enough gain to justify it for most players.

Certainly I would argue there is much more ability to micromanage this sort of thing in civ5, but at the moment about 90% of that is thanks to the absence of beaker overflow. :c5angry: Employing one scientist specialist should not have the potential to save me hundreds of beakers. That is like a mini great scientist.

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 08:36 AM
A possible example. Suppose you have 4 libraries all about to finish next turn, and currently you have the science slider at 50%. Put it to 0% and let the libraries complete, and then put it to 100% after the libraries complete, if only for a turn. Just over the course of two turns, you could gain several extra beakers that way. Admittedly it is micromanagement in the extreme, and would rarely produce enough gain to justify it for most players.

I can't follow you. Why wouldn't you leave it at 50% until said libraries are finished?

Certainly I would argue there is much more ability to micromanage this sort of thing in civ5, but at the moment about 90% of that is thanks to the absence of beaker overflow. :c5angry: Employing one scientist specialist should not have the potential to save me hundreds of beakers. That is like a mini great scientist.

Since we are discussing the game as it is (and actually, I *am* doubtful that the missing beaker overflow is not intended), the slider would be the easier way to go, as far as I see it.

wapamingo
Oct 28, 2010, 09:02 AM
No one wants sliders back, but those complaining about the Civ V economic managemant, are stating that the CURRENT management is awful as Civ IV, because it is not deeper or better in any way.

I love how you say "no one wants sliders back". I do.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the OP.

The slider was a very good feature! The slider in civ4 is not gold output but rather a commerce output that you can divide either in gold or in science. Governments do this, they decide how much of the "budget" is going to be spent and where.

Currently, if I go negative in gold income, my science drops by amount of gold in negative AND I still loose that much gold and start loosing units. I just don't like that.

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 09:23 AM
@ lschnarch

Why do you think missing beaker overflow is intended? Why then would they implement hammer overflow at the city level? The only reason with any substance, for not immediately fixing beaker overflow, is that tech costs would need rebalancing to account for the reduction in wasted beakers. This will render things like the paper tech tree from the game box obsolete.
Otherwise, beaker overflow makes total sense from a streamlining perspective. I've never seen a dev claim that absence of beaker overflow is intended, and until I see a positive statement like that, I'm going to believe it's not intended, or at least that they haven't thought it through and would be willing to change it with the feedback they're getting.

As for the slider and libraries example I mentioned, for civ4, let's examine it with a numbers-example.

Suppose you have just one city producing 20 commerce. Assume you have no beaker or gold modifers yet, and that the slider is at 50%, so you're generating 10 gold and 10 beakers per turn.

As per the above example, we have a library about to complete next turn, and we are only considering the totals across 2 turns.

Scenario 1: Don't micromanage the slider...
Turn 1: Produce 10 gold and 10 beakers
Turn 2: Produce 10 gold and 12.5 beakers

Scenario 2: Micro the slider to 0% science, and then 100% after the library completion.
Turn 1: Produce 20 gold
Turn 2: Produce 25 beakers.

Technically it's even better than this, because there's always a 1-beaker minimum amount put towards research each turn, so scenario 2 should actually have turn 1 being 20 gold and 1 beaker.

Guardian_PL
Oct 28, 2010, 09:23 AM
I love how you say "no one wants sliders back". I do.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the OP.

The slider was a very good feature! The slider in civ4 is not gold output but rather a commerce output that you can divide either in gold or in science. Governments do this, they decide how much of the "budget" is going to be spent and where.

Currently, if I go negative in gold income, my science drops by amount of gold in negative AND I still loose that much gold and start loosing units. I just don't like that.
Not to mention that if you want your empire on science or commerce you have manually go from city to city, tile to tile etc, and then revert it again. That's why I laughed when klokwerk called using a slider "tedious micromanagement" :lol:

I know Piece Of Mind that slider can be used every turn. But it doesn't have to, and even if - it's like a click of a mouse and that's it, job done. Comparing it to what's going on in Civ5 I have no agreement with people being happy that slider is gone.

Ricci
Oct 28, 2010, 09:25 AM
Let me ask you one thing: Why do you spend your time flaming Civ V in the Civ V forums instead of discussing Civ IV in the Civ IV forums - or playing Civ IV.
...


Seriously Lång, It was just a joke. I do discuss in the cIV forum and I do discuss both civs here too, as I have found out there is so little accurate knowledge about the former game, mainly, and I try to compare it against V through solid basis other than vague or disinformed allegations. Allow me to repeat some lines I addressed some time ago in another thread:

It has come to my attention after much reading, day after day after day since before the release of V, a certain pattern concerning the players who were either very enthusiastic with the game before release as the ones pretty satisfied after. In many many advocating posts of theirs it was very quite often mentioned that "it's a blessing espionage is out, it didn't do squat" or "how good religion is gone for good, locked alliances for the entire game" ; "health, redundant, useless really." and it goes on with statements like "you could completely ignore health and happiness" ; "there is no need for anything other than cottages".
Ok, after a while I understood that these detractors of so many game mechanics have never truly learned to play cIV. I say this with utter respect and understanding that many cIV players (who happen to pretty much like ciV) were fond of a simpler civilization, thus trying to grasp a simpler game out of cIV, taking out many features and trying to ignore many others, assessing redundancy to keep it simple, etc. And please, simple is not for a dumber audience, is just a game we are talking about. It is fair for all of these gamers to be expectant and keen of V.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 28, 2010, 09:30 AM
No more then changing anything else, to me.

I hate changing clothes. I keep them on until they turn into smelly rags and fall off. For some reason my friends have started to avoid me. Can't think why.

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 09:35 AM
I know Piece Of Mind that slider can be used every turn. But it doesn't have to, and even if - it's like a click of a mouse and that's it, job done. Comparing it to what's going on in Civ5 I have no agreement with people being happy that slider is gone.

A true micromanager will micro whatever is available to him. It doesn't matter whether it's a slider or city by city. He's more likely to do it if there is more gain to be had. The main gain from micro in civ5 at the moment is avoiding wastage due to absent beaker overflow. It's hard to even tell what other opportunities there would be for micro because that one thing dominates all else.

You could still do tile by tile city level micromanagement in civ4 as well, and there aren't any obvious reasons why civ5 is any different to civ4 in this regard.

I really don't care about whether there should or shouldn't be a slider. Each game works well with its own system. I think the slider was fine for civ4, and I believe I've used the word 'elegant' in describing it in the past. However, with the complete removal of commerce in civ5 - possibly a victim of the streamlining process - there is no longer any need for a slider. This could even reduce micromanagement because the player knows that there is not much that one can do to radically shift the beaker generation each turn apart from small adjustments via specialists. You can't adjust your population during the turn nor the buildings that produce the beakers (apart from the fact you can purchase beaker increasing buildings, but that is an infrequent occurence).

The main potential for tile by tile micromanagement I can see at the moment is tweaking your gold income so you can earn just enough to be able to buy some important thing next turn. Usually as I play civ5 I don't feel compelled to micro the tiles in each city except when the city grows (picking the next tile it should work) or if the city grows culturally (working the new tile if it's good) or getting a tech one turn earlier (the annoying one :c5unhappy:).

There is no more 'binary research' or similar micromanagement possibilities in civ5. I think in the long run I will see that as a good thing, as it did feel very gamey doing it in civ4.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 28, 2010, 09:41 AM
It has come to my attention after much reading, day after day after day since before the release of V, a certain pattern concerning the players who were either very enthusiastic with the game before release as the ones pretty satisfied after. In many many advocating posts of theirs it was very quite often mentioned that "it's a blessing espionage is out, it didn't do squat" or "how good religion is gone for good, locked alliances for the entire game" ; "health, redundant, useless really." and it goes on with statements like "you could completely ignore health and happiness" ; "there is no need for anything other than cottages".
Ok, after a while I understood that these detractors of so many game mechanics have never truly learned to play cIV. I say this with utter respect and understanding that many cIV players (who happen to pretty much like ciV) were fond of a simpler civilization, thus trying to grasp a simpler game out of cIV, taking out many features and trying to ignore many others, assessing redundancy to keep it simple, etc. And please, simple is not for a dumber audience, is just a game we are talking about. It is fair for all of these gamers to be expectant and keen of V.

What you say here is extremely arrogant and offensive - and not true. I did "truly learn to play Civ IV". So did many others who enjoy Civ V, despite its present frailties. One can dislike the way religions seriously unbalanced diplomacy in Civ IV, for example, without either being a moron (as you imply) or "a detractor of Civ IV" (I enjoyed Civ IV immensely) or being deficient at playing the game.

Ricci
Oct 28, 2010, 10:07 AM
What does complexity mean?


This is a good one. I´ll try.
Simply put, complexity for me derives from a situation from which we have multiple alternatives to reach a goal/objective/etc. Or in other words, we have a state of things from which we find multiple means to change to a desired different state. The more alternatives or means we have the more complex the system is.
In opposition, the more straight forward or linear the path to reach the goal is, the more simpler the system becomes; this has nothing to do with micro management or the effort or tedium we have to endure to walk the path, this would be namely dullness or boredom but not complexity. If it is linear, with a couple or no alternatives, where there is just but one evident option to reach from A to B then the system is as simple as it can get.

Ok now, what are the features that sum up complexity in a game like civ, anything that can either add to walking a certain path (to a lesser extent), or mainly anything that can provide a different path all together; every game system collectively working (with it´s pros and cons) in either of these two ways will add complexity if their working derives from independant decisions made by the player. Everything we do has a direct cost or an opportunity cost in these games (with so very little true exceptions) or a combination of them both.
Anyhow, in a game, these systems also need to be fun, realistic, convincing, intriguing, etc, else the game would be abstractly complex and stupid/lame. I don´t want to extend myself beyond answering your question here Piece.

On a side note: I sense you may have become quite a fan of Shafer´s V in the end.. mnmnmn.. can´t really tell though.. haha!

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 10:10 AM
Good statement Ricci about complexity...

That's maybe the main problem of Civ V and, in some ways, of Civ IV...

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 10:27 AM
@ lschnarch

Why do you think missing beaker overflow is intended? Why then would they implement hammer overflow at the city level?
Just because of this.
They've added one overflow and left the other one out. They even didn't "fix" the missing overflow (if they would have thought it to be an missing feature) in either of the patches up to now. As far as I can see they have nowhere announced that this might be something which they are going to correct.

Taking all these information (or missing information) together, I can only assume that they don't intend to change this.


The only reason with any substance, for not immediately fixing beaker overflow, is that tech costs would need rebalancing to account for the reduction in wasted beakers. This will render things like the paper tech tree from the game box obsolete.
Otherwise, beaker overflow makes total sense from a streamlining perspective. I've never seen a dev claim that absence of beaker overflow is intended, and until I see a positive statement like that, I'm going to believe it's not intended, or at least that they haven't thought it through and would be willing to change it with the feedback they're getting.
I agree that beaker overflow makes sense. No doubt about this from a player's perspective.
But you've given one reason already why they might not intend to do so.

And regarding the non-information about this issue: one can say so, one can say the other way.

As for the slider and libraries example I mentioned, for civ4, let's examine it with a numbers-example.

Suppose you have just one city producing 20 commerce. Assume you have no beaker or gold modifers yet, and that the slider is at 50%, so you're generating 10 gold and 10 beakers per turn.

As per the above example, we have a library about to complete next turn, and we are only considering the totals across 2 turns.

Scenario 1: Don't micromanage the slider...
Turn 1: Produce 10 gold and 10 beakers
Turn 2: Produce 10 gold and 12.5 beakers

Scenario 2: Micro the slider to 0% science, and then 100% after the library completion.
Turn 1: Produce 20 gold
Turn 2: Produce 25 beakers.

Technically it's even better than this, because there's always a 1-beaker minimum amount put towards research each turn, so scenario 2 should actually have turn 1 being 20 gold and 1 beaker.

I was expecting that you would come up with an example like that. But now you have introduced a second variable, the income which wasn't in your previous example.
So, the justification for "adjusting" the slider is not based on science, but on the combination of science output and monetary income.
This is highly depending on the circumstances, because it is quite likely that income may not be the limiting factor at that point in the game.

If we would add such an additional limiting factor in a similar example for civ0.V then we would have to check how "easy" it is to re-adjust all my different tiles in my four cities (taken from your example).
Still, I think a slider would be the easier way to go, well if there were still commerce, of course.

I hate changing clothes. I keep them on until they turn into smelly rags and fall off. For some reason my friends have started to avoid me. Can't think why.
You may have hit the nail.
In the previous game, we could change our clothes daily. Therefore, the "Civ4-fans" were feeling well each day.
Seems that the Civ0.V fans are feeling well now, that the clothes finally have changed once.
Let's wait how long it will take them to start smelling again.


The main potential for tile by tile micromanagement I can see at the moment is tweaking your gold income so you can earn just enough to be able to buy some important thing next turn. Usually as I play civ5 I don't feel compelled to micro the tiles in each city except when the city grows (picking the next tile it should work) or if the city grows culturally (working the new tile if it's good) or getting a tech one turn earlier (the annoying one :c5unhappy:).
Good that you mention this.
This is another thing which is not very satisfying: the missing information whether your city has acquired a new hex or not. You just have to keep in mind that there may be a city somewhere which is about to get a new hex to work.

What you say here is extremely arrogant and offensive - and not true. I did "truly learn to play Civ IV". So did many others who enjoy Civ V, despite its present frailties. One can dislike the way religions seriously unbalanced diplomacy in Civ IV, for example, without either being a moron (as you imply) or "a detractor of Civ IV" (I enjoyed Civ IV immensely) or being deficient at playing the game.
As far as I see it, he didn't adress you, but adressed the general intonation of the "fans" block.
Therefore calling him "arrogant" is a bit overdosed, to say the least.

Sullla
Oct 28, 2010, 10:50 AM
I always thought that the sliders worked well in the previous Civilization games. You have X amount of income each turn, and then you assign a certain percentage of it to research, gold, and culture/luxuries. You can put it all to research, but only at the cost of not producing gold or keeping your people happy or whatever. Simple, but a reasonably effective way of doing things.

I'm not so wedded to the system that I think it's the only way of managing the in-game economy. However, if you're going to kill off one of the most basic elements of the Civ franchise, you'd better darn well know what you're doing and have something that works to replace it. Removing the sliders and disassociating research from gold was the single most radical thing that Civ5 did - I still don't think most people realize this. Removing the sliders has completely changed the way that the in-game economy works.

Sadly... it's also broken the whole system. :( Because research and gold are independent variables, and both of them increase with expansion (more population = more research and also = more gold due to trade routes), that means that happiness is the only check on expansion. And once you solve the happiness problem, which is easily done with a few key social policies and lots of small cities with colosseums, you can completely shatter Civ5's economic model. Expand. Keep expanding. Never stop planting more cities. Every city adds to your gold, every city adds to your research, every city adds to your production... It never stops. You grow exponentially without bound, GAINING with every new city. There is no tradeoff, no balancing expansion against economy. Expansion *IS* economy.

I'm still not sure that the general community is aware of how broken this system is. The Strategy forum is full of threads detailing how massive, rapid expansion completely breaks apart Civ5's design. Killing off the sliders and linking gold/beakers to total population has destroyed the economic tradeoffs that were inherent to all of the previous Civilization games. It's pretty bad, guys. What's most baffling is how badly Firaxis failed to understand its own system. They seemed completely unaware that their design would reward a massive city-spamming strategy, and several of the pre-release testers even posted in various places that it would be "impossible" to play the game that way. Well, guess what - it isn't. The designers literally didn't understand the consequences of their own design! :crazyeye:

The lesson of this story: if you're going to change one of the basic gameplay elements of a long-running franchise, you'd better know exactly what you're doing. And they didn't.

vandyr
Oct 28, 2010, 10:54 AM
The lesson of this story: if you're going to change one of the basic gameplay elements of a long-running franchise, you'd better know exactly what you're doing. And they didn't.

I prefer it the way it is now.

SammyKhalifa
Oct 28, 2010, 11:04 AM
There is no tradeoff, no balancing expansion against economy.

Do you think that's because of the slider or that they need to change the numbers? What if every extra city produced, I don't know, 1000 unhappiness for exaggeration's sake? Or what if every new city had a 100 gold upkeep cost? Would you still REX?

I think slider and non-slider systems can both work, and are pretty independent from the current balance issues in V. I kind of like that you can't just fix your mistakes with a quick drag of the slider for a few turns.

I can see the benefits of massive city building. I just choose not to do it.

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 11:10 AM
I was expecting that you would come up with an example like that. But now you have introduced a second variable, the income which wasn't in your previous example.
So, the justification for "adjusting" the slider is not based on science, but on the combination of science output and monetary income.
This is highly depending on the circumstances, because it is quite likely that income may not be the limiting factor at that point in the game.
It's a simplified and unrealistic example only so I can demonstrate the point. However it generalises well, so that whenever you have modifier buildings about to come into effect in cities with large commerce generation (e.g. about to complete your first market in a commerce-heavy Bureacracy capital), it is quite advantageous to tweak the slider in the turns leading up to and following the building's completion. Yes it's situational but that's the whole point. We're talking about micromanagement here.

It is very complicated to describe a realistic scenario of this, simply because there are so many numbers involved, but let me assure you I see lots of possibilities in micro'ing (or 'managing') the slider on a fairly regular basis. i.e. maybe not literally every turn, but certainly a number of times during the research of just one tech.


If we would add such an additional limiting factor in a similar example for civ0.V then we would have to check how "easy" it is to re-adjust all my different tiles in my four cities (taken from your example).
Still, I think a slider would be the easier way to go, well if there were still commerce, of course.
At least in this part of the conversation, I was not making any reference to civ5 at all so I'm not sure why you're making the comparison now as if I was talking about it. I was only describing how micro'ing using the slider was possible in civ4 - nothing more.

Other comments I'm making about civ5 are in relation to a different argument or point.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 11:12 AM
I prefer it the way it is now.

The question is : Did you really understand what Sulla said ? Did you try ICS and continuous expanding ?

Do you think that's because of the slider or that they need to change the numbers? What if every extra city produced, I don't know, 1000 unhappiness for exaggeration's sake? Or what if every new city had a 100 gold upkeep cost? Would you still REX?

I think slider and non-slider systems can both work, and are pretty independent from the current balance issues in V. I kind of like that you can't just fix your mistakes with a quick drag of the slider for a few turns.

I can see the benefits of massive city building. I just choose not to do it.

Err, you seem to have misunderstood Civ 5 philosophy : there is no city upkeep cost, only building maintenance (opposed to Civ4 philosophy). The only thing that prevents ICS is unhappiness. Yes, you could tweak unhappiness due to new cities, but you would need to rebalance a few policies as well. Maybe Sulla could answer better than me to this question.

But right now, nothing prevents mass expansion, and it's not going to change anytime soon, with all the other problems to fix (even if it is actually the biggest gamebreaker atm for people who understand it). The removal of the slider is not a problem, but you need to put something else that works, and it's not working atm.

vandyr
Oct 28, 2010, 11:29 AM
The question is : Did you really understand what Sulla said ? Did you try ICS and continuous expanding ?


Here's the thing: You don't have to do that. You can have a small empire, medium empire, large empire, and manage both gold and happiness without too much trouble if you plan accordingly. Sulla's definition is "expansion is economy" and I disagree completely. Its 'one way' of doing economy, just like domination is 'one way' of winning the game. Loading up on happiness resources is one way of managing happiness, or focusing on income and loading up on happiness buildings is another. Or both, whatever works for your current empire. what he says is no different from how Civ 4 played, except that in Civ 4 I didn't have to plan anything, I could pump out or capture as many cities as i wanted and build every building in every city with little or no recourse.

Sulla describes large empires as game breakers, yet you'll find thread after thread on this forum from people that complain because large empires are impossible to manage. To my view of this, Firaxis can't win with this playerbase, no matter what they do.

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 11:31 AM
I always thought that the sliders worked well in the previous Civilization games. You have X amount of income each turn, and then you assign a certain percentage of it to research, gold, and culture/luxuries. You can put it all to research, but only at the cost of not producing gold or keeping your people happy or whatever. Simple, but a reasonably effective way of doing things.

I'm not so wedded to the system that I think it's the only way of managing the in-game economy. However, if you're going to kill off one of the most basic elements of the Civ franchise, you'd better darn well know what you're doing and have something that works to replace it. Removing the sliders and disassociating research from gold was the single most radical thing that Civ5 did - I still don't think most people realize this. Removing the sliders has completely changed the way that the in-game economy works.

Sadly... it's also broken the whole system. :( Because research and gold are independent variables, and both of them increase with expansion (more population = more research and also = more gold due to trade routes), that means that happiness is the only check on expansion. And once you solve the happiness problem, which is easily done with a few key social policies and lots of small cities with colosseums, you can completely shatter Civ5's economic model. Expand. Keep expanding. Never stop planting more cities. Every city adds to your gold, every city adds to your research, every city adds to your production... It never stops. You grow exponentially without bound, GAINING with every new city. There is no tradeoff, no balancing expansion against economy. Expansion *IS* economy.

I'm still not sure that the general community is aware of how broken this system is. The Strategy forum is full of threads detailing how massive, rapid expansion completely breaks apart Civ5's design. Killing off the sliders and linking gold/beakers to total population has destroyed the economic tradeoffs that were inherent to all of the previous Civilization games. It's pretty bad, guys. What's most baffling is how badly Firaxis failed to understand its own system. They seemed completely unaware that their design would reward a massive city-spamming strategy, and several of the pre-release testers even posted in various places that it would be "impossible" to play the game that way. Well, guess what - it isn't. The designers literally didn't understand the consequences of their own design! :crazyeye:

The lesson of this story: if you're going to change one of the basic gameplay elements of a long-running franchise, you'd better know exactly what you're doing. And they didn't.

I'm aware of the power of ICS in civ5 and I agree with you it's pretty bad how it has turned out to be so effective a strategy when civ4 did a decent, but not excellent, job of countering it. However, I am unsure whether it's fair or makes sense to be attributing much of it to the removal of the slider, or as I prefer to describe it, the removal of the neutral commerce type. Not that you need it explained, but for the benefit of other readers, the slider is only the tool for setting the distribution rates of the commerce into its various flavours.




The slider did have some nuances that weren't entirely newbie friendly and these are more significant in civ4 than in previous versions. You'd have to admit it was pretty common for new players to form the false idea that an empire with a higher-running science slider was doing more research than one with a lower science slider. Ironically it was almost always the exact opposite of that situation, because an empire that could not afford a high science rate was usually the bigger empire, and hence the one with more commerce generation.

All that aside, we want to talk here about ICS and how it has come to dominate civ5 economic strategy. I suppose this has been discussed in great detail in the S&T section, but I have not read much about it yet. It seems to me that the removal of ICS-limiters in civ5 is not much to do with the removal of commerce but rather just the removal of any number of the expenses:
-City upkeep: Number of cities, distance to palace, and city size. All increased the empire's expenses, attempting to counter ICS.
-Civic upkeep. I don't recall the exact details, but this scaled with population and number of cities I think.

The main expenses in civ5 are unit and building maintenance, and to a lesser extent roads (depending on type of map and size of empire though, I suppose). These do not do enough to counter ICS.

From what I can tell, you are taking the view that in civ4, the way that ICS was limited was (to put it simply) by increasing the costs so that sacrifices to research had to be made, and that by expanding too far you would effectively cripple research as well as have units disbanding if it got bad enough.

I would contend it's still possible to do a similar thing in civ5 even with its sliderless economic model, but it would take a significant reshuffle of the types of expenses the empire faces. The easiest thing to start with, I think, would be a reintroduction of a number of cities cost. One that, like in civ4 IIRC, increased faster than linearly with number of cities.

SammyKhalifa
Oct 28, 2010, 11:38 AM
Err, you seem to have misunderstood Civ 5 philosophy : there is no city upkeep cost, only building maintenance (opposed to Civ4 philosophy). The only thing that prevents ICS is unhappiness. Yes, you could tweak unhappiness due to new cities, but you would need to rebalance a few policies as well. Maybe Sulla could answer better than me to this question.

But right now, nothing prevents mass expansion, and it's not going to change anytime soon, with all the other problems to fix (even if it is actually the biggest gamebreaker atm for people who understand it). The removal of the slider is not a problem, but you need to put something else that works, and it's not working atm.

Yeah, I understand that--I was just throwing out a few limiters off of the the top of my head. Perhaps making Settlers cost 1 billion hammers or something would be more in line with the new philosophy.

Anyhow, it sounds like we agree that this (ICS) is a problem with balance and not necessarily a problem with the presence or lack of a slider.

Hopefully they'll have those balance issues well thougth-out soon. In the meantime I'll just choose to not employ ICS to have more fun with the game.

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 11:45 AM
The main expenses in civ5 are unit and building maintenance, and to a lesser extent roads (depending on type of map and size of empire though, I suppose). These do not do enough to counter ICS.

Good that you mention this.
Here I see just the next flaw if not even misdesign.

The fact that I can spread my resources over all of my empire without having to have a single road makes roads actually a golden goose (do you say so in English? Something which delivers wealth to you at no costs?).

In ICS cities are very close to each other, typically 3 or 4 hexes apart. Which just means that you have to wait until they reach size 3 or 4 and you will automatically make some money by building a road.
Before that point, you just don't do it.

If you place the roads inside of a triangle of three cities all the time, you even have less road hexes than total population, which will allow you to make even more money. Which will make placing cities even more attractive.

These things are that much obvious that I really have some problems in accepting the statement that there was any playtesting. Or alternatively, I would have to accept that the developer crew didn't pay any attention to their playtesters.

I don't know which of the both would be worse.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 11:47 AM
Here's the thing: You don't have to do that. You can have a small empire, medium empire, large empire, and manage both gold and happiness without too much trouble if you plan accordingly. Sulla's definition is "expansion is economy" and I disagree completely. Its 'one way' of doing economy, just like domination is 'one way' of winning the game. Loading up on happiness resources is one way of managing happiness, or focusing on income and loading up on happiness buildings is another. Or both, whatever works for your current empire. what he says is no different from how Civ 4 played, except that in Civ 4 I didn't have to plan anything, I could pump out or capture as many cities as i wanted and build every building in every city with little or no recourse.

Sulla describes large empires as game breakers, yet you'll find thread after thread on this forum from people that complain because large empires are impossible to manage. To my view of this, Firaxis can't win with this playerbase, no matter what they do.

You don't have to do that, but you should, since it gives only benefits. You can have a 'normal' civilization and lots of little cities besides that are happiness neutral and give gold + tech. Every strategy you use benefits from ICS (at the exception of a cultural win). You can choose not to expand, but the AI will shamelessly use this flaw of the game anyway.

People complain about large empires impossible to manage because they don't do the strat properly, you must limit your city pop in the small cities and go for the good policies / wonders (at least one of them).


I would contend it's still possible to do a similar thing in civ5 even with its sliderless economic model, but it would take a significant reshuffle of the types of expenses the empire faces. The easiest thing to start with, I think, would be a reintroduction of a number of cities cost. One that, like in civ4 IIRC, increased faster than linearly with number of cities.
I would try to tweak happiness before re-introducing old concepts. Increasing unhappiness faster than linearly may resolve the problem (but would at least mean a serious rebalancing of the game). As it is, happiness is nearly useless since it does not the job it should do (unless the. goal is to favor empires with a lot of small cities and few of big ones).

vandyr
Oct 28, 2010, 11:53 AM
You don't have to do that, but you should, since it gives only benefits. You can have a 'normal' civilization and lots of little cities besides that are happiness neutral and give gold + tech. Every strategy you use benefits from ICS (at the exception of a cultural win). You can choose not to expand, but the AI will shamelessly use this flaw of the game anyway.

People complain about large empires impossible to manage because they don't do the strat properly, you must limit your city pop in the small cities and go for the good policies / wonders (at least one of them).




Well, sure...I guess. In Civ 3 I should have set up a food city that was nothing but a settler pump, but I didn't. Or set science slider to zero and just buy techs from all the money I made, and be the world tech leader. IMO those things were more broken than this.

And if people complain because they're not "doing the strat" properly, then it must not be as immediately game breaking as you all make it out to be. Sounds to me like a different way of play that, at the late game, has too much of an advantage but obviously isn't easily attainable or there wouldn't be so many complaint threads about the negative effects of large empires. Maybe it is broken, maybe it needs to be adjusted, but I don't think bringing the simplicity of sliders back as an answer to that.
Because as I said, what Sulla is talking about is no different from Civ 4 whatsoever, only in Civ 4 it was easier.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 12:12 PM
Well, sure...I guess. In Civ 3 I should have set up a food city that was nothing but a settler pump, but I didn't. Or set science slider to zero and just buy techs from all the money I made, and be the world tech leader. IMO those things were more broken than this.

And if people complain because they're not "doing the strat" properly, then it must not be as immediately game breaking as you all make it out to be. Sounds to me like a different way of play that, at the late game, has too much of an advantage but obviously isn't easily attainable or there wouldn't be so many complaint threads about the negative effects of large empires. Maybe it is broken, maybe it needs to be adjusted, but I don't think bringing the simplicity of sliders back as an answer to that.
Because as I said, what Sulla is talking about is no different from Civ 4 whatsoever, only in Civ 4 it was easier.

The point that bugs me the most in this, is the way the AI can manage gigantic empires without any drawback. If I have 7 cities very developed, and the AI 30 with nothing in them, I'm still far behind in tech / gold / prod while I'm struggling in happiness. I don't feel it's fair. But that's just an opinion :D

vandyr
Oct 28, 2010, 12:13 PM
The point that bugs me the most in this, is the way the AI can manage gigantic empires without any drawback. If I have 7 cities very developed, and the AI 30 with nothing in them, I'm still far behind in tech / gold / prod while I'm struggling in happiness. I don't feel it's fair. But that's just an opinion :D

Oh yea, I can agree with that. I always see the AI pumping out workers and soldiers while I'm still struggling to get my fledgling capital off the ground.

r_rolo1
Oct 28, 2010, 12:14 PM
@PoM

I have to disagree both of you and Sullla ( wow, disagreeing with one of one of the most respected civ players around and a CFC mod at the same time :lol: ).... better said , you are both right , but neither of you is completely right IMHO.

Quoting TMIT, the devs intention was to make global happiness the empire size limiter ( better said, the empire pop limiter ;) ) and I think the penalty for having a city in terms of :mad: is a clear sign they wanted to stop extremely large empires with little cash flow per city ( aka ICS ) via happiness constrictment ( that and using the building maintenace to constrict the number of :) giving buildings in the empire as well ).

OFC that it is plain to see that this model of limiting does not work as intended with the current values. And all the alternatives for fixing it inside the current Civ V economical system will backfire somewhere else, because, unlike in civ IV model where you paid for having a city and the city would pay more if there were far more cities, you can't contain ICS without griping big pop empires or large number of cities empires as well ( said in other words, there is no way of adressing specifically ICS without breaking some other stuff ).

What Sullla IMHO was trying to say is that is that in civ IV maintenance, research, culture ( and espionage in BtS ) and the gold purse were all eating from the same dish and thus the simple fact that you wanted to increase one of them via slider or not meant that you needed to cut somewhere else and that alone was a major part in stopping ICS ( that and the above mentioned fact that maintenance per city was not static, but it grew with size of empire, unlike Civ V :mad: penalty for having cities ) while not necessarily punishing big empires as long as they could make enough cash flow ( aka cities with good pop each + good building support ) ). The fact that we don't have slider is not that important, but the fact that the whole system that came from civ IV was broken apart without a good replacement is ;)

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 12:42 PM
OFC that it is plain to see that this model of limiting does not work as intended with the current values. And all the alternatives for fixing it inside the current Civ V economical system will backfire somewhere else, because, unlike in civ IV model where you paid for having a city and the city would pay more if there were far more cities, you can't contain ICS without griping big pop empires or large number of cities empires as well ( said in other words, there is no way of adressing specifically ICS without breaking some other stuff ).


I don't follow you there. ICS and large number of city empires are pretty much the same, and are what should be contained. Why should it break something else ? Of course you need to rebalance a lot of other things, and that's a lot of work, but it's theoretically possible, or I missed something ?

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 12:45 PM
@PoM

I have to disagree both of you and Sullla ( wow, disagreeing with one of one of the most respected civ players around and a CFC mod at the same time :lol: ).... better said , you are both right , but neither of you is completely right IMHO.Well, no one is ever completely right. Or if they were, one should never admit it because it would end discussion. :D

Quoting TMIT, the devs intention was to make global happiness the empire size limiter ( better said, the empire pop limiter ;) ) and I think the penalty for having a city in terms of :mad: is a clear sign they wanted to stop extremely large empires with little cash flow per city ( aka ICS ) via happiness constrictment ( that and using the building maintenace to constrict the number of :) giving buildings in the empire as well ).

I can agree with this. That is, I agree it looks like this was the dev's intention.


OFC that it is plain to see that this model of limiting does not work as intended with the current values. And all the alternatives for fixing it inside the current Civ V economical system will backfire somewhere elseWell, how certain can you be that all alternatives would backfire somewhere else? Is it even possible to consider all conceivable alternatives? :p, because, unlike in civ IV model where you paid for having a city and the city would pay more if there were far more cities, you can't contain ICS without griping big pop empires or large number of cities empires as well ( said in other words, there is no way of adressing specifically ICS without breaking some other stuff ).
Why is that a problem? What's wrong with griping big city or large-number-of-cities empires?

EDIT... Ah, maybe I misunderstood what you meant there. I guess by griping you mean something like 'making unattractive'. I assumed before that you meant something like putting limits on their effectiveness.


What Sullla IMHO was trying to say is that is that in civ IV maintenance, research, culture ( and espionage in BtS ) and the gold purse were all eating from the same dish and thus the simple fact that you wanted to increase one of them via slider or not meant that you needed to cut somewhere else and that alone was a major part in stopping ICS ( that and the above mentioned fact that maintenance per city was not static, but it grew with size of empire, unlike Civ V :mad: penalty for having cities ) while not necessarily punishing big empires as long as they could make enough cash flow ( aka cities with good pop each + good building support ) ). The fact that we don't have slider is not that important, but the fact that the whole system that came from civ IV was broken apart without a good replacement is ;)

You say that all of gold, research, culture and espionage came from the same dish in civ4, almost as if suggesting that this is not the case in civ5. Not sure if this was your implication, but if it were I would partly disagree. In civ5 there are still inherent ties between these different 'currencies'. You can use gold to purchase culture, for example, either through cultured city states or through buildings in cities. Negative cashflows subtract from research now. Obtaining beaker-improving buildings costs maintenance and, if purchased, also the upfront gold.

And, of course in civ4, there were still ways to generate each of the currencies that were completely unrelated to the slider. Specialists being the most important example, but also including gpt trades, culture/espionage from buildings, tech trades, bulbing, production of wealth/research from cities, even capturing cities.

The main difference the slider provided was that the balance between all these different currencies could be shifted very quickly i.e. on the order of every turn. In civ5, the balance between the three types of currencies can only be shifted more slowly or gradually. The 'all currencies eat from the same dish' is not quite the same I think, and not capturing the essence of the problem.

Another way to put it is that in civ5, increasing ones output in one of the areas of culture, science or gold still requires sacrifices to the other two, even if the only reason for this was opportunity cost. Essentially that 'dish' they all have to eat from is still the limited land which your cities occupy. The new system is just much more inflexible to change on a per-turn basis.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 12:53 PM
I don't follow you there. ICS and large number of city empires are pretty much the same, and are what should be contained. Why should it break something else ? Of course you need to rebalance a lot of other things, and that's a lot of work, but it's theoretically possible, or I missed something ?

What that means is that Civ IV adopted an economic system from gestional games (europa Universalis, Heart of Iron, Sim City etc.)...

You have 100 (with the value changing over time) resorces, allocate them through sliders in multiple activities... change them when you need... You don't exchange the resources for something other, losing them forever, you only spare them for an indefinite time.


Civ V adopted an RTS type's economic system... Harvest resources, spend them for necessities... (and here we came on the loss of surplus culture or science, because the game do not pay exactly the amount, but when you reach the amount, except for gold...). So you gain 6 happiness, you spend 3 to build a city, or spend 1 for +1 population and so on.. what you give is forever taken...


In Civ V culture, science, gold and happiness are resources that you harvest to buy something. Some time you buy with one resource a bonus to the production of another resource... That's all...

r_rolo1
Oct 28, 2010, 01:01 PM
I don't follow you there. ICS and large number of city empires are pretty much the same, and are what should be contained. Why should it break something else ? Of course you need to rebalance a lot of other things, and that's a lot of work, but it's theoretically possible, or I missed something ?
You are missing something ;)

ICS is the acronim for Infinite city sprawl . It is basically putting the biggest number of cities possible in a certain space. It will surely lead to a big number of cities if you have enough terrain, but it does not require it.

My point was a simple question: how to punish having a big number of cities with little infra and little pop without punishing empires with a large number of developed cities or small and undeveloped empires in the current rule framework of civ V? And i don't see any reasonable solution to this question: increasing maintenance to :) buildings will punish a lot more big cities than ICS, scaling :mad: for having cities with number of cities works pretty bad because :) is necessarily a integer ( OFC the problem would be far smaller if everything was multiplied by 100 :D ), putting a civ IV-esque maintenance per city limiter does not work well without a slider and it is against the coder original intention to the extreme, making high level :) buildings more appealing will also boost ICS while gimping the smaller empires that can't produce much of cashflow...

I maitain: IMHO it is quite close of impossible the task of curbing ICS inside the current rule frame of Civ V without gimping something else.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 01:05 PM
Hmm, nothing prevents you from using a non linear increase in unhapiness with city number, even it's a RTS type economy (though I cringe using this term, I play a lot of SC2 and really there's no comparison, even if I kinda understand what you mean).

You could even change the hapiness given by buildings to be proportional to city pop, to favor big cities.

Unthinking Pain
Oct 28, 2010, 01:06 PM
Except for the fact that the city governor seems to have been spoiled with the latest patch, IOW may let your cities starve.

I haven't been having this problem. Clicking the buttons has shifted things quite well for me. What situation(s) are causing this starving?

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 01:07 PM
Personally three sliders are to few to make it worth of, and the one for expionage is useless...


The best is a slider for every single aspect... Commerce, Science, Culture, Production and Diplomacy as it is in some other franchise.... I still think that it may be not global, but for every city... But the last is a little hardcore:D

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 01:12 PM
Hmm, nothing prevents you from using a non linear increase in unhapiness with city number, even it's a RTS type economy (though I cringe using this term, I play a lot of SC2 and really there's no comparison, even if I kinda understand what you mean).

You could even change the hapiness given by buildings to be proportional to city pop, to favor big cities.

Obviusly is a little different, but the mechanic is the same. Harvest and spend. it may be freewill, like building a city, or choosing a tech, or unintentional(to some extend), like when a city grow up (spending 1 happines x 1 citizen), or picking a social...

With sliders it's totally different, it'is more like sim city or Heart of iron... You administrate directly your amount of resources....

And you can change the value of happines from the source, you can only spend for an addition ( a source)to the amount, but you spend another resource for that. You can't really manage it, or better, you can intentionally hurt something to regain resources... But is like starving a city to regain happiness....

Roxlimn
Oct 28, 2010, 01:12 PM
r_rolo1:

Not impossible. See here:

Rule 16: Any Civ with more than 20 cities stops gaining technology and stops all production. There, ICS solved.

Granted, it's a pretty big and blunt hammer, but the problem isn't unsolvable as you said.

SammyKhalifa
Oct 28, 2010, 01:16 PM
r_rolo1:

Not impossible. See here:

Rule 16: Any Civ with more than 20 cities stops gaining technology and stops all production. There, ICS solved.

Granted, it's a pretty big and blunt hammer, but the problem isn't unsolvable as you said.

Or perhaps settlers get exponentially more expensive the more of them you have built.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 01:18 PM
Those are artificial limitations, because the system can't preserve itself from the ICS....

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 01:18 PM
scaling for having cities with number of cities works pretty bad because is necessarily a integer
Why should it be integer ? And even if it's an integer, it could be 1 unhapiness for 1st city, 2 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, etc... Or you could be even more tricky and devise a system where buildings give hapiness proportionally to average city pop of your empire, and you round the number to an integer at the end.

I don't see the interest in ICS if you only have a few cities, so containing the number of cities seems a good strategy

And you can change the value of happines from the source, you can only spend for an addition ( a source)to the amount, but you spend another resource for that. You can't really manage it, or better, you can intentionally hurt something to regain resources... But is like starving a city to regain happiness....
Ok, what you mean is you can't have a building that changes the number of hapiness it gives, due to coding limitations (or philosophical limitations rather) ?

SammyKhalifa
Oct 28, 2010, 01:19 PM
Those are artificial limitations, because the system can't preserve itself from the ICS....

So are the limitations in CivIV.

JLoZeppeli
Oct 28, 2010, 01:23 PM
mhm that is quite interesting, i'm not so fondin modding the game, so i could suppose that the value cannot be related to a another not city related as general happiness, i don't know, but happiness related building give an amount relative to single cities...
But maybe the Gandhi ability can be reduced to a building ability... :confused:

So are the limitations in CivIV.

Not exactly, in Civ IV is the system itself that limits ICS, not a barrier based on the number of city (20 as Rox proposed) or cost of settler after time....

Sullla
Oct 28, 2010, 01:33 PM
The removal of the sliders and the creation of the new happiness system are the same gameplay mechanic. They both function as the "limiting factor", the thing that slows down empires from growing throughout the game. In Civ4, you have to stagger your expansion to prevent from going bankrupt due to city maintance costs. In Civ5, you (in theory) have to place your cities with care or else you will drop into catastrophic unhappiness and be completely unable to grow. It's supposed to work the same way as past Civilization games: when you hit -10 unhappiness, your cities cannot grow in population, and thus they cannot produce additional science/gold from population. The idea was that this would cause players to stagger expansion, and take care in placing new cities. Of course, it doesn't work that way at all in practice...

Firaxis has really trapped themselves with the happiness design model. If the player doesn't understand how to manage happiness effectively, he/she ends up stuck with a handful of cities even in the Modern age. This isn't fun, and the player gets frustrated and quits. (This is actually where about 90% of the complaints about Civ5 are coming from; most people believe that the happiness model is too restrictive.) But the expert players have effectively figured the system out, and they can expand endlessly without bound, making the game a total joke all but the most extreme difficulties. It's not fun for either group, the worst place for a gameplay system to fall. I've seen plenty of suggested fixes, but most of them are worse than the disease, like the ones Roxlimn and SammyKhalifa just posted above. Tightening up city placement further will only drive away the bulk of gamers (who don't see where the system's flaws lie), making them more frustrated about being stuck with a handful of cities. In order to salvage the in-game Civ5 economy, the game needs a complete rework of city growth (need to be able to reach larger sizes much faster), the benefits from city states, the actual city improvements themselves (advanced buildings need to offer a lot more benefits), the cost to build stuff (needs to be lower), and the tile improvements/resource yields (need to be redone significantly). That's... an awful lot!

Again, sliders aren't some magical mana from heaven. You can design a fine system without them. However, this is not a fine system, and many of its flaws are due to the removal of those same sliders.

r_rolo1
Oct 28, 2010, 01:33 PM
Well, how certain can you be that all alternatives would backfire somewhere else? Is it even possible to consider all conceivable alternatives? :p
Well, most if not all of the alternatives that do not break the current civ V ruleset and whatever balance we have in the other areas of the game file under a very restrict number of broad groups: increase :) building maintenance, increase :mad: per city with number of cities, make high level :) buildings far more appealing...

IMHO all backfire somewhere else. I detailed this above in other post.
Why is that a problem? What's wrong with griping big city or large-number-of-cities empires?
Ok, I was not clear in here, but there is no direct pointer in the game that the coders wanted to gimp empires with big number of developed cities besides the culture win ( the lip service of the pre-release is another thing ), so I can legitimaly assume that the devs do not want that.

But anyway what I meant is how to gimp ICS without gimping even more empires with a big number of developed cities? If you have a idea feel free to put it, because I sincerely don't see it.

You say that all of gold, research, culture and espionage came from the same dish in civ4, almost as if suggesting that this is not the case in civ5. Not sure if this was your implication, but if it were I would partly disagree. In civ5 there are still inherent ties between these different 'currencies'. You can use gold to purchase culture, for example, either through cultured city states or through buildings in cities. Negative cashflows subtract from research now. Obtaining beaker-improving buildings costs maintenance and, if purchased, also the upfront gold.

And, of course in civ4, there were still ways to generate each of the currencies that were completely unrelated to the slider. Specialists being the most important example, but also including gpt trades, culture/espionage from buildings, tech trades, bulbing, production of wealth/research from cities, even capturing cities.

The main difference the slider provided was that the balance between all these different currencies could be shifted very quickly i.e. on the order of every turn. In civ5, the balance between the three types of currencies can only be shifted more slowly or gradually. The 'all currencies eat from the same dish' is not quite the same I think, and not capturing the essence of the problem.

Another way to put it is that in civ5, increasing ones output in one of the areas of culture, science or gold still requires sacrifices to the other two, even if the only reason for this was opportunity cost. Essentially that 'dish' they all have to eat from is still the limited land which your cities occupy. The new system is just much more inflexible to change on a per-turn basis.
It is not the same as in civ IV, and that is not a sugestion ;) What i meant is that Civ IV system created a chokehold where you had the mentioned above variables all competing for the same thing at the same time ( barring the specs, the shrine/HQ cash and the rest of the stuff you mentioned. Will come back to that later ). This does not happen in civ V in the same extent as you point out, and that allows for cushioning deficits in one area in a far easier way than in civ IV. That alone breaks the chokehold effect that this had in civ IV, that was the main component of the effect it had on limiting ICS. True, the slider is not a necessary part of that system, but I'm not advocating that either ;) ( it was a very convenient and simple solution, though :p )

About the specs ... well, I do find them pretty equivalent in both versions of civ in terms of overall effect. The Shrine/HQ money is the real diference, but it is a fairly minor part of the Civ IV economical system so I do not mind of pretending it does not exist in a first aproach :D

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 01:39 PM
But anyway what I meant is how to gimp ICS without gimping even more empires with a big number of developed cities? If you have a idea feel free to put it, because I sincerely don't see it.

Maybe increase the unhappiness cost for each new city, but increase the effectiveness of late happiness buildings and decrease pop unhapiness ratio to counter the gradual increase with number of city ? Ok, tough to balance :D.

Or you could simply remove the pop unhappiness completely. Actually, when they removed the health ressource, they bound their hands. It was probably a bad decision. Too hard to balance now. Or you could bring back the acqueduc to allow your city to grow over 7, etc ... I find it was a super funny system, but I was a lot younger ;)

r_rolo1
Oct 28, 2010, 01:45 PM
Why should it be integer ? And even if it's an integer, it could be 1 unhapiness for 1st city, 2 for 2nd, 3 for 3rd, etc... Or you could be even more tricky and devise a system where buildings give hapiness proportionally to average city pop of your empire, and you round the number to an integer at the end.

I don't see the interest in ICS if you only have a few cities, so containing the number of cities seems a good strategy?
I haven't said it was a good strategy or not ICS with little cities, just that the terms were not equivalent. And in fact ICS golden hour is actually in the beginning of the game, because it allows you to get more out of the land you have in hand ( because of the way city growth works in civ games, with more food needed per pop level ).

About happiness being a integer.... Like I said, everything would work far smoother if both :) and :( were multiplied by 100 ;) .Your proposed solutions bring some issues though: growing 1 :mad: per city would actually make a increase of n^2 - ( n-1 )^2 per city added in terms of global :mad:, that is basically a brick wall to all empires size around 5-6 cities, and averages are very sensible to extreme values to be good mechanics ( see Civ IV vassal system that is plagued with issues due to use of simple averages ) and it actually favours a uniform city size ;)

P.S

Maybe increase the unhappiness cost for each new city, but increase the effectiveness of late happiness buildings and decrease pop unhapiness ratio to counter the gradual increase with number of city ? Ok, tough to balance . Or you could simply remove the pop unhappiness completely. Actually, when they removed health ressource, they bound their hands. It was probably a bad decision. Too hard to balance now.
Note that I've been always working under the assumption you want to keep whatever balance there is in civ V besides the ICS issue ;) If we want to break the mold, there is a lot of latitude on what we can do, but that will not be civ V ... maybe civ 5.5 ;)

DavidPBacon
Oct 28, 2010, 01:47 PM
Forget about what I wrote, read Sullas post instead.

Hate posting lag...

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 02:03 PM
I see your point. I will think on it :D

Still, in Civ4 the way was a gradual increase in maintenance cost with the number of city, so a system similar may work if well thought.

vandyr
Oct 28, 2010, 02:04 PM
But the expert players have effectively figured the system out, and they can expand endlessly without bound, making the game a total joke all but the most extreme difficulties.

This is where I don't understand your point. I did far more of this in Civ 4 than I have in Civ 5, with far fewer limitations.

ds61514
Oct 28, 2010, 03:11 PM
This is where I don't understand your point. I did far more of this in Civ 4 than I have in Civ 5, with far fewer limitations.

While it's pretty clear that in Civ 5 ICS is better than Civ 4, Civ 4 also had its expansion "issues" as well.

I'll use Vanilla as a reference.

1) Great Lighthouse. Potentially the most powerful wonder in the game. Who playtested this one? :crazyeye:

2) Bulbing + tech-trading. Another way to climb back into the tech game. 7:1 trades aren't unheard of, although 4:1 & 3:1 are more common. Selling techs + resources (why does an AI with iron want my copper for 8 gpt :confused:) also helped.

3) Building Wealth.

4) National Wonders. The Civ 4 ones are magnitudes more powerful than Civ 5, Thus, for a standard map, the difference between 5 & 6 cities is easily 50+ beakers and/or 120 hammers/turn. Is a hard cap between "optimal" and "suboptimal" better than ICS?

And the worst one:

1) Rush + pillage cash. In Vanilla, peaceful expanding was suboptimal because the military AI was so terrible it was easier to just kill your neighbor, take the pillage cash and run higher slider. When players say "I conquered a capital, my economy is fixed," that's a problem :). Thankfully, BTS fixed this to a large degree.

Calouste
Oct 28, 2010, 04:04 PM
I always thought that the sliders worked well in the previous Civilization games. You have X amount of income each turn, and then you assign a certain percentage of it to research, gold, and culture/luxuries. You can put it all to research, but only at the cost of not producing gold or keeping your people happy or whatever. Simple, but a reasonably effective way of doing things.

I'm not so wedded to the system that I think it's the only way of managing the in-game economy. However, if you're going to kill off one of the most basic elements of the Civ franchise, you'd better darn well know what you're doing and have something that works to replace it. Removing the sliders and disassociating research from gold was the single most radical thing that Civ5 did - I still don't think most people realize this. Removing the sliders has completely changed the way that the in-game economy works.

Sadly... it's also broken the whole system. :( Because research and gold are independent variables, and both of them increase with expansion (more population = more research and also = more gold due to trade routes), that means that happiness is the only check on expansion. And once you solve the happiness problem, which is easily done with a few key social policies and lots of small cities with colosseums, you can completely shatter Civ5's economic model. Expand. Keep expanding. Never stop planting more cities. Every city adds to your gold, every city adds to your research, every city adds to your production... It never stops. You grow exponentially without bound, GAINING with every new city. There is no tradeoff, no balancing expansion against economy. Expansion *IS* economy.

I'm still not sure that the general community is aware of how broken this system is. The Strategy forum is full of threads detailing how massive, rapid expansion completely breaks apart Civ5's design. Killing off the sliders and linking gold/beakers to total population has destroyed the economic tradeoffs that were inherent to all of the previous Civilization games. It's pretty bad, guys. What's most baffling is how badly Firaxis failed to understand its own system. They seemed completely unaware that their design would reward a massive city-spamming strategy, and several of the pre-release testers even posted in various places that it would be "impossible" to play the game that way. Well, guess what - it isn't. The designers literally didn't understand the consequences of their own design! :crazyeye:

The lesson of this story: if you're going to change one of the basic gameplay elements of a long-running franchise, you'd better know exactly what you're doing. And they didn't.

It's sad to see someone with a respected reputation on these boards make such an idiot of theirselves. Not just this post, but in various other ones.

The fix to ICS is a simple one, the same that was in Civ4 and that is to make cities geometrically more expensive. There are various way to implement this as have already been discussed in posts above, but nothing that affects the basic design of the game, just one of the mechanism. It will take some time to find out which of the various ideas creates the right balance though. I personally like the idea of having cities generate increased unhappiness with each era and have later buildings generate more happiness to balance it out. (And of course nerf things like the Forbidden Palace to only -1 unhappiness per city, not -50% unhappiness.)

hclass
Oct 28, 2010, 04:28 PM
This is where I don't understand your point. I did far more of this in Civ 4 than I have in Civ 5, with far fewer limitations.

I remember I read Sullla's walk through, he started ICS in the beginning stage of a Civ5 game. Do you mean you can do the same even easier in Civ4?

May I know how you did ICS in Civ4, I mean do you start ICS right from the very beginning of the game and is able to avoid getting bankrupt?

Except for pillage cash, as you can see, none of those items listed by ds61514 is possible in early stage of a Civ4 game, so I am damn curious how you did ICS in early stage of Civ4...???

lschnarch
Oct 28, 2010, 04:49 PM
I haven't been having this problem. Clicking the buttons has shifted things quite well for me. What situation(s) are causing this starving?

There seem to be quite some conditions. Unhappiness is one of them, but it has been reported and observed that even under happy conditions the city governor may let cities just starve.


The fix to ICS is a simple one, the same that was in Civ4 and that is to make cities geometrically more expensive. There are various way to implement this as have already been discussed in posts above, but nothing that affects the basic design of the game, just one of the mechanism. It will take some time to find out which of the various ideas creates the right balance though. I personally like the idea of having cities generate increased unhappiness with each era and have later buildings generate more happiness to balance it out. (And of course nerf things like the Forbidden Palace to only -1 unhappiness per city, not -50% unhappiness.)
Since the AI typically is trying to run the ICS thing too, you would have to train it to understand your proposed rules.
Furthermore, I foresee quite some problems in balancing based on different map sizes, map types and difficulty level.
Do you have an easy solution for that, too?

Roxlimn
Oct 28, 2010, 05:55 PM
I have to second a counter to Sullla's commentary.

First of all, I did not suggest a fix. I suggested a rule that would stop ICS dead cold, no question, and I posted that as a direct rebuttal to the argument that ICS is unsolvable. That's just total nonsense. Of course, it can be solved! If nothing else, you can hard cap the number of cities the player can control and leave it at that.

Secondly, Trade Route Economy in Civ 4 demonstrates that unlimited expansion is possible in any Civ model - all you need to do is to counter the penalties of expansion with the gains on each City. The Great Lighthouse allows you to do so, and thus allows virtually unlimited expansion so long as the requirements of the Wonder are met.

The difference in Civ V is that the Colosseums are acting like The Great Lighthouse, so it allows unlimited expansion with an easily met condition. Those parallels are directly comparable and is the chief reason why ICS is possible in Civ V.

The real question here is, what's wrong with ICS? Why would players consider ICS a problem to begin with?

Ricci
Oct 28, 2010, 06:27 PM
Good statement Ricci about complexity...
That's maybe the main problem of Civ V and, in some ways, of Civ IV... Thanks italian guy!

Ricci
Oct 28, 2010, 06:29 PM
What you say here is extremely arrogant and offensive - and not true. I did "truly learn to play Civ IV". So did many others who enjoy Civ V, despite its present frailties. One can dislike the way religions seriously unbalanced diplomacy in Civ IV, for example, without either being a moron (as you imply) or "a detractor of Civ IV" (I enjoyed Civ IV immensely) or being deficient at playing the game.

Well, I did mention a pattern that I have detected, not an absolute truth that includes absolutely everyone Lang. This is true indeed. Moreover not only I never implied anything being moronic but pretty much said that a simple game needn't be for dumb people.

Ricci
Oct 28, 2010, 06:30 PM
It's a simplified and unrealistic example only so I can demonstrate the point. However it generalises well, so that whenever you have modifier buildings about to come into effect in cities with large commerce generation (e.g. about to complete your first market in a commerce-heavy Bureacracy capital), it is quite advantageous to tweak the slider in the turns leading up to and following the building's completion. Yes it's situational but that's the whole point. We're talking about micromanagement here.


Ha! That's old school you are talking about. This is doable, as you state it, every time you are about to upgrade some multiplier, and it optimizes well enough economy in your empire; on the other hand you might gradually hit a tech one or two turns later than you would, this delay is the trade off in this case.
- Actually, the complete strategy would be: at a given point of the game, turn your slider to %100 gold and all your cities to build libraries, universities, any science multipliers, then change it to %100 science (consuming the gold you saved earlier) and build every gold multiplier building (markets, etc). This will get you somewhat delayed in tech until you catch up at a much greater pace you would have been otherwise. A strategy like this needs good timing to work nicely and an investment big enough to make it count, works better with cities of similar population/production, etc. And also this one implies a huge opportunity cost.

- I certainly find myself using the slider even more as a happiness factor to mass draft (this works excelent together with a full specialist economy as your economy won't suffer that much), you need to have the infrastructure to make it count.

- And of course there is the cultural victory situation were you will want to have as much culture as possible and here you have a system to "add" to this goal.

- Already mentioned was the accumulation of gold for mass upgrading of units.

- Another use I pull from time to time is the mass espionage against one single foe, specially in MP, to get visuals and the other passive spying.

The fact is the slider adds to the game tactical means, that you don't have without it.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 06:42 PM
It's sad to see someone with a respected reputation on these boards make such an idiot of theirselves. Not just this post, but in various other ones.

The fix to ICS is a simple one, the same that was in Civ4 and that is to make cities geometrically more expensive. There are various way to implement this as have already been discussed in posts above, but nothing that affects the basic design of the game, just one of the mechanism. It will take some time to find out which of the various ideas creates the right balance though. I personally like the idea of having cities generate increased unhappiness with each era and have later buildings generate more happiness to balance it out. (And of course nerf things like the Forbidden Palace to only -1 unhappiness per city, not -50% unhappiness.)

There's nothing idiot about Sulla's post. ICS has more impact in civ 5 because large cities are not as good as in civ 4, and many different civ5 mechanisms increase the output of the small cities. You have the maritime CS as well, so you can build those cities in the ice, the desert, etc ...

It seems simple to fix it with geometrical increase, but that's not a small change. It requires a lot of rebalancing, so it's going to take some time. What is difficult is to prevent lots of small cities but allow lots of big cities, as is explained in the thread. It's not as easy as it seems. It may require to break the scalability of hapiness, being impossible to go over a certain number of cities.

Keeping only one variable to check your pop and number of cities is a bit of overkill, in Civ 4 you had 3 variables, in Civ1 nothing prevented you from putting a lot of cities everywhere, but it gave you no advantage as well, and pop was controlled by happiness and infrastructure.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 06:55 PM
I have to second a counter to Sullla's commentary.

First of all, I did not suggest a fix. I suggested a rule that would stop ICS dead cold, no question, and I posted that as a direct rebuttal to the argument that ICS is unsolvable. That's just total nonsense. Of course, it can be solved! If nothing else, you can hard cap the number of cities the player can control and leave it at that.

Secondly, Trade Route Economy in Civ 4 demonstrates that unlimited expansion is possible in any Civ model - all you need to do is to counter the penalties of expansion with the gains on each City. The Great Lighthouse allows you to do so, and thus allows virtually unlimited expansion so long as the requirements of the Wonder are met.

The difference in Civ V is that the Colosseums are acting like The Great Lighthouse, so it allows unlimited expansion with an easily met condition. Those parallels are directly comparable and is the chief reason why ICS is possible in Civ V.

The real question here is, what's wrong with ICS? Why would players consider ICS a problem to begin with?

A hard cap coming from nowhere is a horrible idea to prevent ICS. Forget this. You need something that scales to begin with (that's a legitimate argument against ressource happiness btw, I don't know what the devs were thinking).

It's easy to prevent ICS if you can mod the game as you want, but if you want to follow all the rules of current civ5, you need to find a reasonable answer without changing too many things. I tried to and it's harder than it seems. It may be impossible to fix without sacrificing some design decision of Civ5.

There's also a difference between one wonder being broken and a lot of design decisions put together making ICS so powerful in any circumstance.

ICS is a problem because :
- the AI use it, so you cannot ignore it
- in any circumstance (cultural win excepted), you gain only advantages from using it
- it destroys the game play : you don't care anymore about where to build your cities, you don't care about tile improvements, the game becomes boring doing always the same easy thing, and ultimately you gain a huge advantage against AI since it doesn't use it as well as a human player.

Celevin
Oct 28, 2010, 07:16 PM
I would contend it's still possible to do a similar thing in civ5 even with its sliderless economic model, but it would take a significant reshuffle of the types of expenses the empire faces. The easiest thing to start with, I think, would be a reintroduction of a number of cities cost. One that, like in civ4 IIRC, increased faster than linearly with number of cities.
This right here. I've been recommending a non-linear unhappiness per city scaling for awhile now. Imagine if, in Civ4, every new city cost you x gold and never increased. The moment it becomes profitable to build one new city, it becomes profitable for you to build 50 new cities!

The other half of the problem is with how happiness is obtained. Even with a positive rate of change for unhappiness per city, it won't exactly work. This is because mature cities have no way of granting you additional happiness, only new cities. It's actually more beneficial for you to gain happiness from new cities due to colloseums being better than theatres or stadiums.

There needs to be a serious alteration to the model for happiness to work well in Civ5. There needs to be more ways to gain happiness from mature cities, by linking buildings with other effects (like +happiness equal to 10% of gold output). If not then the best way to gain happiness will, ironically, always be from expanding.

Right now happiness is not a "city maintenance", but the total opposite!

Zechnophobe
Oct 28, 2010, 07:24 PM
I think if you just did something like, for example: Each citizen costs 1 Happiness, and each City costs .5 Happiness for each city in your empire.

.5 for 1 city
2.0 for 2 cities
4.5 for 3 cities
8.0 for 4 cities.
etc.

It would make effects that decrease happiness per city less uniformly incredible, but still obviously good. Early expansion would still make sense, but 8 cities costing a total of 32 unhappiness would need to be more carefully planned for.

Then just include a few more happiness effects available to large cities.

Calouste
Oct 28, 2010, 07:25 PM
Since the AI typically is trying to run the ICS thing too, you would have to train it to understand your proposed rules.
Furthermore, I foresee quite some problems in balancing based on different map sizes, map types and difficulty level.
Do you have an easy solution for that, too?

I said in my post it would take some time to find the right balance. But then, I never expected an open ended game with the scope of Civ5 to be balanced on release.

Celevin
Oct 28, 2010, 07:29 PM
I think if you just did something like, for example: Each citizen costs 1 Happiness, and each City costs .5 Happiness for each city in your empire.

.5 for 1 city
2.0 for 2 cities
4.5 for 3 cities
8.0 for 4 cities.
etc.

It would make effects that decrease happiness per city less uniformly incredible, but still obviously good. Early expansion would still make sense, but 8 cities costing a total of 32 unhappiness would need to be more carefully planned for.

Then just include a few more happiness effects available to large cities.
That increases too quickly. We came up with a good fix in the Strategy forums with a good function, but even with it the problem still remains.

There needs to be a way that mature cities can generate happiness.

Calouste
Oct 28, 2010, 07:32 PM
There's nothing idiot about Sulla's post. ICS has more impact in civ 5 because large cities are not as good as in civ 4, and many different civ5 mechanisms increase the output of the small cities. You have the maritime CS as well, so you can build those cities in the ice, the desert, etc ...

It seems simple to fix it with geometrical increase, but that's not a small change. It requires a lot of rebalancing, so it's going to take some time. What is difficult is to prevent lots of small cities but allow lots of big cities, as is explained in the thread. It's not as easy as it seems. It may require to break the scalability of hapiness, being impossible to go over a certain number of cities.

Keeping only one variable to check your pop and number of cities is a bit of overkill, in Civ 4 you had 3 variables, in Civ1 nothing prevented you from putting a lot of cities everywhere, but it gave you no advantage as well, and pop was controlled by happiness and infrastructure.

The idiotic thing about Sulla's post is that he concludes that the game design is completely broken, where as, as you and I agree, there is a specific mechanism in the game that needs balancing. It might take some work to balance it, but it is surely possible.

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 07:33 PM
There needs to be a serious alteration to the model for happiness to work well in Civ5. There needs to be more ways to gain happiness from mature cities, by linking buildings with other effects (like +happiness equal to 10% of gold output). If not then the best way to gain happiness will, ironically, always be from expanding.

Right now happiness is not a "city maintenance", but the total opposite!

A slider to manage hapiness would be such a good idea. :lol::lol::lol:

Joke aside, can someone give more information about the STR like managing of ressources in Civ 5 ? It's bugging me more and more, because it would mean that buildings couldn't be designed to have a variable amount of hapiness. And that would be a serious problem for non linear scale of unhappiness with number of cities.

Roxlimn
Oct 28, 2010, 07:37 PM
Zogar:

There aren't "a lot of design decisions" making ICS so powerful. Sid Meier-style Civ games have always favored ICS. Most of the mechanisms in the game favor ICS. Civ 4 simply introduced a mechanic - city maintenance, that effectively controlled it in many instances.

Where you could eliminate the hurdle in Civ 4, ICS resurfaced as the preferable strategy. This occurred in Trade Economy, but also with Corporations later on.

Civ V's mechanic for controlling expansion simply happens to be nonfunctional at the moment. This goes to the question of whether we want to control ICS to begin with, and how much we want to control it. Most players here are going about the fix bass ackwards. They're starting from mechanics. That's a bad paradigm.

First, decide on what you want to happen, then implement the mechanics to see it through, then test. Introducing mechanics without knowing the target is a little like blindly shooting at a target and checking to see if you hit it every time. It's better to take the time to see where the target is, first.

Zechnophobe
Oct 28, 2010, 07:37 PM
I got it! Dark ages!

We keep the system roughly the same, but with a few tweaks:

1) Generally increase per city unhappiness
2) remove -10 penalty for major negative unhappiness
3) Halve the duration of Golden Ages from :) and halve the amount of :) you need to accrue for them.
4) Allow for NEGATIVE progress on Golden Ages, so you can go below zero. At a certain value of negative unhappiness you enter a DARK AGE. Dark Age lasts as long as the newly shortened golden age, during which you produce nothing, basically just anarchy for 4 turns.
5) Make Golden ages/dark ages not take longer and longer to happen. I'm not even sure why this mechanism is in there since normal golden ages happen so rarely it is laughable (compared to Taj or Great Person).

Zogar
Oct 28, 2010, 07:43 PM
Roxlimm :

That's something I don't understand (the goal, not what you said). With Civ5 they decided to severly limit city expansion with global hapiness, and at the same time they introduced so many designs that scale with the number of cities (and even ways to reduce the penalties).

The end result is that it's better to spam cities everywhere, in the desert, in the ice, etc. I doubt it was the devs intention, but they did everything to make it possible. What were they thinking ?

Zechnophobe :

The idea of Dark Age is incredible :D

Roxlimn
Oct 28, 2010, 08:17 PM
Zogar:

In all fairness, the route to making an ICS work flawlessly is a little hard to spot. There's a "Colosseum" needle that you have to pass to make ICS hum. If you miss the balancing, the ICS expansion falls flat. The reason here is because you are using new Colosseums to fund happiness for you your second tier cities, and growth in second tier cities and Trade Posts to buy more Colossuems. It's a pretty delicate balance.

It's not exactly the most robust strategy in the game right now. That would still be massive domination with Horsemen.

It's conceivable that the team did not want to limit world-spanning empires unduly. In Civ 4, this could be a real problem until you hit Corporations, if you didn't have Holy Shrines or The Great Lighthouse.

Having a massive dominant world-spanning empire necessarily implies that the limitations for ICSing have to be surmountable. This is what I meant when I said that we have to know what we want before we talk about how to see that through with mechanics.

Ricci
Oct 28, 2010, 08:26 PM
...
Secondly, Trade Route Economy in Civ 4 demonstrates that unlimited expansion is possible in any Civ model - all you need to do is to counter the penalties of expansion with the gains on each City. The Great Lighthouse allows you to do so, and thus allows virtually unlimited expansion so long as the requirements of the Wonder are met.
...


The great lighthouse is an eventuality given just to one civ in every game, obsoleted further on as well. Furthermore, given the GL many cities implies having good and also many coastal spots to settle (or you will end with a bunch of mediocre cities in the mid term to deal with) and having all the necessary foreign trade or you will only cash halve the profit from domestic trade.
Anyhow, this ISP argument has distorted to the extent that it seems big empires shouldn't exist in a civ game. It was never an issue if large empires should be viable, ultimately and in the long run they have the better chance to prevail, this is both realistic and gameplay wise. Fact is the acquisition and upcoming consolidation of a big empire (either through rexing or conquest) opens a window of opportunity to out tech, out build (including wonders) or attack the over expanding part. Making this window as short as possible is the biggie's prerogative.
It just happens to be that the window of opportunity opened when expanding in ciV is too small and too short for anyone to care or suffer from.

Who hasn't won a cIV game keeping it small/medium (like 10 cities in large size) out teching & out culturing your late game massive human foe with a cultural victory?

Roxlimn
Oct 28, 2010, 08:54 PM
Ricci:

Instead of taking sound bytes out of my commentary, I would prefer it if you actually read everything.

It is not a fact in Civ V that the acquisition and consolidation of a big empire opens up an opportunity to out-tech the enemy. Since tech is dependent on population, each conquest speeds up research. Out building is possible in the case of Very Unhappy Civs, but those Civs do not have incentives to stop their conquests anymore, which leads us to the last point - Civs that are large by dint of conquest usually have outstandingly strong armies. Given the mobility of units in Civ 5, there isn't really an opportunity to attack the stronger Civ without encountering his army of death.

PieceOfMind
Oct 28, 2010, 09:52 PM
Can anyone please link where this has been discussed in S&T?

Öjevind Lång
Oct 29, 2010, 03:45 AM
I prefer it the way it is now.

So do I.

lschnarch
Oct 29, 2010, 05:11 AM
I said in my post it would take some time to find the right balance. But then, I never expected an open ended game with the scope of Civ5 to be balanced on release.

That much about the "easy" solution then.

Calouste
Oct 29, 2010, 05:35 AM
That much about the "easy" solution then.

Conceptually the solution is easy, you can adjust an existing game mechanic (which means that the game isn't "broken"). The exact implementation and balance of that will take some time.

Zogar
Oct 29, 2010, 05:51 AM
Conceptually the solution is easy, you can adjust an existing game mechanic (which means that the game isn't "broken"). The exact implementation and balance of that will take some time.

Conceptually, I don't see how easy it is without 'breaking' another design decision for Civ5. The only way I think of is increasing happiness cost of new cities and making hapiness given by buildings scale with city size / output to still allow large empires of big cities.

But the game design (STR like economy) is that your buildings don't have a variable happiness output. Actually, I don't think it's possible to mod it as of now, could s.o. confirm ? If you want to keep STR like management of happiness, it's not fixable. Hence broken.

r_rolo1
Oct 29, 2010, 05:54 AM
Can anyone please link where this has been discussed in S&T?
Here is the main one (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=388793) ( and the first one ). There are others dealing with ICS as well, but more specific game bounding .

@Roxlimn

I would assume that the thing we want to happen is to get rid of ICS without messing with the rest of the game balance between big and small empires and keeping the basic rule frame that the game has. You can assume otherwise OFC ;) , but my reasoning so far was based in that premise.

That said, this doesn't leave many options inside the assumpion I have stated, like I stated in other posts. You have a point in saying that ICS as it is now depends heavily on colloseums, but toning back colloseums to avoid ICS would gimp all the balance in city growth across the game for every type of empire and i wonder if it would not make ICS a even stronger ( in comparative terms, that is ) aproach than it is now. Reworking the tile output ( as Sullla sugested ) would probably also help ICS as well ( not saying that the current model does not help ICS though, but that is probably as much to blame to tile out as to the decision of having hexes instead of square tiles, that pretty much forces a third ring for the cities to work, thus making the balancing far diferent of the 20 tile BFC of previous civ titles ) ...

In the end, I think we must slash one other sacred cow to stop ICS inside the current model that uses global happiness as empire limiter. Now we just need to choose what one :p

Zogar
Oct 29, 2010, 07:33 AM
I was thinking, if you changed the minimal distance between cities to 4-5 hexes, wouldn't it help a lot against ICS ?

PieceOfMind
Oct 29, 2010, 07:53 AM
Thanks rolo.

Öjevind Lång
Oct 29, 2010, 08:06 AM
I was thinking, if you changed the minimal distance between cities to 4-5 hexes, wouldn't it help a lot against ICS ?

That's a pretty good idea.

Celevin
Oct 29, 2010, 08:21 AM
I was thinking, if you changed the minimal distance between cities to 4-5 hexes, wouldn't it help a lot against ICS ?
I dislike this idea, the game would become a huge huge land war then. People would still REX (through conquering). In fact, in some of my games my cities have good spacing even though I'm churning out settlers as fast as humanly possible. I'm just not "honeycombing". I'd much rather have something implemented that makes people say "building this next city might actually hurt my economy until I get new techs / buildings up".

Celevin
Oct 29, 2010, 08:56 AM
Here is the main one ( and the first one ). There are others dealing with ICS as well, but more specific game bounding .
Oh SURE, link him your thread and not mine! :)

Dun Malg
Oct 29, 2010, 09:30 AM
. I'd much rather have something implemented that makes people say "building this next city might actually hurt my economy until I get new techs / buildings up".

This is an important point, I think. Hard limits like "4 spaces between cities" should be considered as an absolutely last resort. Preferably, the game should be structured such that you can do whatever you like, and have the consequences of building to close together keep you from doing so. One of the things that makes these games fun is situations like having a pair of cities 2 spaces apart normally be disastrous for both cities, except in some odd combination where the exploitation of some resource, or some crucial strategic value (like controlling a strait) balances it out. A hard limit doesn't give the option to shoot yourself in the foot, and any time options are limited, it's one step closer to a depressing "greased rails to victory" game.

SammyKhalifa
Oct 29, 2010, 09:40 AM
This is an important point, I think. Hard limits like "4 spaces between cities" should be considered as an absolutely last resort. Preferably, the game should be structured such that you can do whatever you like, and have the consequences of building to close together keep you from doing so. One of the things that makes these games fun is situations like having a pair of cities 2 spaces apart normally be disastrous for both cities, except in some odd combination where the exploitation of some resource, or some crucial strategic value (like controlling a strait) balances it out. A hard limit doesn't give the option to shoot yourself in the foot, and any time options are limited, it's one step closer to a depressing "greased rails to victory" game.

While I agree with that for the most part, didn't CivIV have a hard rule as to how close cities could be?

Ricci
Oct 29, 2010, 09:44 AM
...
It is not a fact in Civ V that the acquisition and consolidation of a big empire opens up an opportunity to out-tech the enemy. Since tech is dependent on population, each conquest speeds up research. Out building is possible in the case of Very Unhappy Civs, but those Civs do not have incentives to stop their conquests anymore, which leads us to the last point - Civs that are large by dint of conquest usually have outstandingly strong armies. Given the mobility of units in Civ 5, there isn't really an opportunity to attack the stronger Civ without encountering his army of death.

I was refering to civ games in general, just at the last sentence specified ciV. And you are right, I should have said that in ciV this window of opportunity is non existant other than short or weak as I did.
Population adding science would be the main factor as you stated, also an invading army which finds no true counter and easily obliterates the enemy without practically any loses but instead making such army even stronger through additional promotions. Having more tech to reach first to the unwonderous wonders and not needing to replace units lost makes the biggie also more prone to get them or focus on other building as well. So these three factors, uber overpowered military, tech through population, together with how happiness works make for a great ICS situation. It is fair to realize now that any concious attempt to limit ICS will probably need to address these three as the whole problem.

Celevin
Oct 29, 2010, 09:48 AM
While I agree with that for the most part, didn't CivIV have a hard rule as to how close cities could be?
Yes, and so does Civ5. But it's low enough that it doesn't really hurt your decision making too much. If they allowed me to plant cities closer in Civ4, I don't know how many times I would. In contrast in Civ5, if they let me, I'd probably place cities a step closer, in fact if I had the Maritimes up and buildings for specialists, I'd probably place a city on near every tile.

PieceOfMind
Oct 29, 2010, 09:56 AM
Celevin,
You mean this one? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=382812

Celevin
Oct 29, 2010, 10:43 AM
Celevin,
You mean this one? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=382812
Nah, I was just trying to bug Rolo :) . That thread's old and I probably disagree with it (though the selling of happiness buildings makes this strat really really easy to pull off).

Ahriman's thread "A Core Set of Balance Changes" (11th page, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=388179&page=11) contains a lot of my thoughts on the topic. It's not enough though as I said here. Happiness buildings also need to be altered.

jenks
Oct 29, 2010, 10:57 AM
just a quick post to say im a fan of the new system no slider

makes more logical sense that one tunr you can divert your entire economy one way or the other

makes more strategic sense that you have to plan ahead

adds to value of currency. Wealth has long been overlooked in civ

my 2 pence stated!

LDiCesare
Oct 29, 2010, 03:07 PM
I really dislike the fact that I cannot change the tech rate when I want.
If I realise I have happiness issues, instead of upping the slider, I must check every city and build/buy colosseums everywhere needed. To me it's a chore.
I feel I have no control over science. I just have to grow a lot of population, and the only way to concentrate on tech is through building or research agreements. I feel like a whole part of the game has been removed, to be honest. If I managed to micromanage my cities I could increase the tech slider and get more tech, now I have to micromanage cities and the consequences will be long term, but negligible when compared to the output of research agreements (not to talk of maritime city states).

Ricci
Oct 29, 2010, 03:11 PM
just a quick post to say im a fan of the new system no slider

makes more logical sense that one tunr you can divert your entire economy one way or the other

makes more strategic sense that you have to plan ahead

adds to value of currency. Wealth has long been overlooked in civ

my 2 pence stated!

I keep reading this kind of opinions and I figure if people realize what does the slider fundamentally signifies in the game. Just indulge me for some lines. How shall I put it:

Tactics & Strategy

As I always saw it the slider represents a government means to abruptly invest into some needing aspect of your empire, this makes sense and it is a realistic approach, as governments do need to lean expenses into social welfare, sanitation & health, scientific development, culture, even espionage sometimes to adjust their political platform and/or upcoming and sudden situations during their office. This kind of adjustment made "for the moment" comes into the sphere of tactical gameplay. cIV is by far a much more tactical game than ciV, it has several mayor tactical features to account this aspect of the game: slider, civics, random events (to name the major ones); the only feature in which this situation could be inverted is combat, due to care positioning and more complex unit movement, etc, nevertheless combat is potentially more tactical in V as it stands today because... well no need to go any deeper into AI here.

On the other hand we have the sphere of strategic decisions, decisions with medium/long term repercussions that need planing and involve pretty high opportunity costs. ciV has a lot of strategic choices but very little tactical aspects. CSs and specially SPs (two mainly strategic features) add a lot of strategy to the game compared to cIV. Then again a lot of other features adding strategy had been removed (espionage, religion, health, you name it..); though this is off topic here.

Consider this, all the strategic choices to run your economy remain the same through IV into V: choosing the long term buildings, which allow both economic multipliers and specialists slots, improving the countryside (farms, cottages, workshops, windmills, etc), wonders pursuit. Even changing specialists within a turn, the tactical aspect of a specialist economy, remains (though it was much more powerful in IV due to caste system and no maintenance costs from buildings). But the commerce tactical counterpart, the slider & base commerce system, is gone. this is what has been lost with the slider, nothing more, nothing less.

Calouste
Oct 29, 2010, 04:35 PM
I really dislike the fact that I cannot change the tech rate when I want.
If I realise I have happiness issues, instead of upping the slider, I must check every city and build/buy colosseums everywhere needed. To me it's a chore.
I feel I have no control over science. I just have to grow a lot of population, and the only way to concentrate on tech is through building or research agreements. I feel like a whole part of the game has been removed, to be honest. If I managed to micromanage my cities I could increase the tech slider and get more tech, now I have to micromanage cities and the consequences will be long term, but negligible when compared to the output of research agreements (not to talk of maritime city states).

You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?

Öjevind Lång
Oct 29, 2010, 05:03 PM
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?

Well, Italians generally seem to. Just look at the other posts by Italians here - and the way they manage their country.

Infraction for Trolling

LDiCesare
Oct 29, 2010, 05:14 PM
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?

I have no problem beating Civ V on Deity, thank you, and I don't feel I even have to plan much to achieve that.

I have a problem with having to plan ahead and then not have to ever adjust my plans because there's never a single reason why I should deviate from my initial plan.
Civ V almost feels like it plays by itself, except for the military part.
I like long term planning. But being unable to adapt is something I dislike. see Clausewitz: "Never engage the same enemy for too long or he will adapt to your tactics". In Civ V you just can't change. You pick a strategy at the start, and if you picked rock and your opponent picked paper, then you're doomed as you can no longer change. It's not dynamic and to me not much fun.
Right now, the fun I have in Civ V is to try to see how I can win despite restrictingg myself. It's a twisted puzzle game, not really a strategy game.

mrt144
Oct 29, 2010, 05:36 PM
The slider was a great way of doing macroeconomic tasks while at the same time allowing you to custom tailor the macroeconomic decisions of each city.

More complex micro managment isn't neccesarly better.

People need to see when complexity of decision making and the process of implementing those complex decisions are both good and bad. Complexity isn't synonymous with good.

DavidPBacon
Oct 29, 2010, 09:37 PM
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?

I really can´t get this "plan ahead" thing.
Imagine that you have a job that pays you 1000$. You spent 250 on food, 250 on rent and utilities, 250 on entertainment and 250 with taxes. Now imagine that you can´t change the proportion (no sliders) and suddenly the price of food goes up. Now you pay 300 for food.
Since you can´t change where you spent your money you:
a) get another job. (find another income in game)
b)use your savings(plan ahead)
c)go barter with the people responsible for the other expenses (change focus inside cities)
But you just can´t spent less in entertainment to compensate for the rising price of food.
Now go up some levels and see if this scenario makes sense in a goverment over 6000 changing years. It doesn´t to me and is not realistic in a way that actually makes gameplay worse and not fun. (IMO)

Jolly Rogerer
Oct 29, 2010, 09:56 PM
just a quick post to say im a fan of the new system no slider

makes more logical sense that one tunr you can divert your entire economy one way or the other




It depends somewhat on how many years a turn is. A modern country would have trouble changing its focus 100% in a year, but an ancient regime probably would not have trouble changing its focus over a decade or two.

nokmirt
Oct 29, 2010, 10:13 PM
:confused:
Is this a flame bait? With slider I can decide for myself how much resources I want to spend for science with one click, in Civ5 with no science overflow I have to visit several cities and click galore to prevent wasting a lot of beakers, and then turn later do the same crap again. And you call that improvement?

Well, I am playing a game where I just go to the end of the Classical Era. I have done that, but I keep building all of this science +142 a turn. I don't need science, so how do I stop my empire from building it, and put some of that energy back into my economy? I sitting here wondering, why are they still building science, that should be alot less than what it is. So the sliders used to take care of this, and this game can be a pain when you lose happiness in your empire. Everyone starts declaring war on you, because they know your units fight at a serious disadvantage. I am thinking of starting to play a new game. If not I am going to annex any puppet cities, and burn every city all the way to my main cities, of which I have about 6. Then I am going to pillage as much as I can around where those cities were. Then expand slowly from there.

Calouste
Oct 30, 2010, 12:11 AM
I really can´t get this "plan ahead" thing.
Imagine that you have a job that pays you 1000$. You spent 250 on food, 250 on rent and utilities, 250 on entertainment and 250 with taxes. Now imagine that you can´t change the proportion (no sliders) and suddenly the price of food goes up. Now you pay 300 for food.
Since you can´t change where you spent your money you:
a) get another job. (find another income in game)
b)use your savings(plan ahead)
c)go barter with the people responsible for the other expenses (change focus inside cities)
But you just can´t spent less in entertainment to compensate for the rising price of food.
Now go up some levels and see if this scenario makes sense in a goverment over 6000 changing years. It doesn´t to me and is not realistic in a way that actually makes gameplay worse and not fun. (IMO)

Except of course that you can change where you spend your money by shifting some of your citizens around.

But you can't stop eating or stop paying the rent like you could in Civ4.

LDiCesare
Oct 30, 2010, 12:22 AM
Except of course that you can change where you spend your money by shifting some of your citizens around.

How do you stop your citizens from doing research?
You mean you have to micromanage every of your city specialists instead of just moving the slider. Not a lean user interface.

Eberon
Oct 30, 2010, 12:38 AM
But you can't stop eating or stop paying the rent like you could in Civ4.

I dont think you could stop eating but if you stopped paying the rent you got evicted...hrm sounds like a sound system.

DavidPBacon
Oct 30, 2010, 12:52 PM
Except of course that you can change where you spend your money by shifting some of your citizens around.
That´s option c) actually. And just a pain in the anology as in the game.

But you can't stop eating or stop paying the rent like you could in Civ4. And what´s the problem with that? You had payoffs. You got money? No tech. You want full tech? Have to sacrifice some money. Sounds realistic to me. You had to build up your empire to be able to do that(build tech and money at the same time).

Öjevind Lång
Oct 30, 2010, 07:17 PM
I have no problem beating Civ V on Deity, thank you, and I don't feel I even have to plan much to achieve that.

I have a problem with having to plan ahead and then not have to ever adjust my plans because there's never a single reason why I should deviate from my initial plan.
Civ V almost feels like it plays by itself, except for the military part.
I like long term planning. But being unable to adapt is something I dislike. see Clausewitz: "Never engage the same enemy for too long or he will adapt to your tactics". In Civ V you just can't change. You pick a strategy at the start, and if you picked rock and your opponent picked paper, then you're doomed as you can no longer change. It's not dynamic and to me not much fun.
Right now, the fun I have in Civ V is to try to see how I can win despite restrictingg myself. It's a twisted puzzle game, not really a strategy game.

Personally, I enjoy Civ V immensely - more every time I play it and get a better understanding of how it functions. It's a pity it's possible to "win" using bludgeon techniques brought over from Civ IV, and I hope the developers will change that.

Mind you, I liked Civ IV too, but all versions of Civ differ from each other. Otherwise, what would the point be in publishing a "new" version of Civ?