View Full Version : Digitaltrends GDC article


Rocktwig
Mar 12, 2012, 09:26 PM
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/civilization-5-gods-and-kings-preview/

Posted a couple of hours ago.

New info/bits and pieces:
- minimum 200 Faith required to spawn Great Prophet. "It’s a random occurrence after that, so you’ll just need to cross your fingers and… err… pray."
- Inquisitors appear "later in the game" and will "stamp out competing religions in one city or another".
- "Spies are a limited resource. You’ll get your first one when the Renaissance starts and then another one with each new era after that. You’ll also get one for building a national intelligence agency."
- "Spies assigned to a city-state can influence elections that are held every 12 turns, swaying the people more toward allegiance with your own civ. Alternatively, you can have a spy incite a coup with the goal of a total regime change."

The_J
Mar 12, 2012, 09:32 PM
Also new (I think):

A city-state quest can be [...] spreading one religion or another to their city

Oh, and will add the link to the list in a second.

Rocktwig
Mar 12, 2012, 09:34 PM
Thank you, The_J :goodjob:

nokmirt
Mar 12, 2012, 09:55 PM
Interesting about combat. I was having a feeling that battles would take the same amount of time. Even with the new changes. That seems to not be the case any longer. The good thing is that if you make a mistake and leave a catapult in front it may yet be able to be saved. This will certainly add tactical depth to combat. Upgrades and experience will be that much more important and useful for units. Hmmm

Pouakai
Mar 12, 2012, 10:14 PM
Also in said article (AriochIV mode, Activate!), apologies if anything below has been mentioned, I'm just combing the article for any new info ;)

Pantheon Beliefs:
- The God of the Sea provides +1 :c5production: production from fishing boats
- God of War provides faith whenever you win a battle within four tiles of a city tied to that belief system.

Religious spreading and units:
- Any cities within 10 hexes of the source — whether or not they’re part of your own civilization — will slowly convert over to the new faith.
- Missionary units allow for the spreading of religion
- Inquisitors, which appear later in the game, stamp out competing religions in one city or another.
- First Great Prophet requires a minimum of 200 faith
- Founder beliefs offer boosts as your religion spreads across the land
- Follower beliefs bring specific benefits to the cities that worship your gods, whether or not they’re part of your civ.
- One such follower belief boosts the fighting power of your civ’s troops whenever they’re close to a city that worships your religion.

Combat:
- A lone catapult, for example, could conceivably survive an enemy attack

Espionage:
- Recieve one spy from national intelligence agency (National Wonder)
- Spies are off-map units
- Recieve XP and Promotions
- Assigned to a city
- Intrigue system: "There’s also a new intrigue system in the game, which brings you a steady flow of random information. For example, your spy might bring word that “[leader X] is building up a naval force and plans to launch a sneak attack on another nation.” It could also be more specific: “[leader X] plans to declare war on [leader Y].”

Diplomacy:
- Reach out to potential targets and warn them in advance about war plans learnt via espionage
- The above causes a positive Diplo modifier with the targeted nation

Monthar
Mar 12, 2012, 11:13 PM
God of the Sea is a faith we hadn't seen before.

AriochIV
Mar 12, 2012, 11:26 PM
You can still bribe City-States. :( Just adding more quests won't fix a system that's fundamentally broken.

God of the Sea is a faith we hadn't seen before.
No, it was mentioned previously. And it's a Pantheon Belief. "Faith" is the name of the resource.

edit: The "National Intelligence Agency" sounds like a National Wonder. Which leads me to "wonder" if National Wonders are included in the total of 9 new Wonders. If so, we're already there (if Michelangelo's David is a Wonder).

Louis XXIV
Mar 12, 2012, 11:39 PM
I don't think gold payment is by itself a problem. If they make it so quests are far more efficient because the cost of alliances are too high, then bribing will be fine.

Deggial
Mar 13, 2012, 12:12 AM
Remember the 4 small bars beneath the city name that replace the single long bar we have at the present time?

-We know, that there can be 3 parallel quests at the same time in G&K
-From the latest pictures we know, that these small bars fill/decline just like the old, big one.

My guess:
These bars represent the fulfilled missions now.
As there are "only" three missions, the 4th bar should represent monetary gifts.
So, money is still useful when dealing with CS, but it's influence is outnumbered by fulfilled quests 3:1.

dexters
Mar 13, 2012, 12:25 AM
- Intrigue system: "There’s also a new intrigue system in the game, which brings you a steady flow of random information. For example, your spy might bring word that “[leader X] is building up a naval force and plans to launch a sneak attack on another nation.” It could also be more specific: “[leader X] plans to declare war on [leader Y].”


I'm a little concerned about this. How will the AI handle espionage against the human player?

I assume it will get random peeks at your forces? While our spies may be able to report that Civ X is building up a naval force to launch a sneak attack (to use the example in the article); a human player may simply build up forces and decide a target later.

Unless the partial information being related back is tied to the current 'war in 10 turns' arrangement, there's no way a human player can signal to the AI he/she is going to go to war, and furthermore, human players may just always decline such arrangements to befuddle the AI and go to war on their own once they see the AI do so. Alternatively there has to be more agreements than the current co-op war, like meeting specific army size targets, as a pre-requisite to co-op war, or simply a request to build your forces to X. Or agreements not to meddle in their wars. agreements that players will have to enter into to play the 'diplomatic intrigue' with very distinct benefits that the AI can then use in their espionage to get a signal on what we are up to.

There has to be incentives to agree to those co-op wars and related agreements instead of freelancing. Or rather disincentives to freelancing.

I'm concerned about this being a nice feature on paper but totally exploitable in practice.

Pouakai
Mar 13, 2012, 12:28 AM
Remember the 4 small bars beneath the city name that replace the single long bar we have at the present time?

-We know, that there can be 3 parallel quests at the same time in G&K
-From the latest pictures we know, that these small bars fill/decline just like the old, big one.

My guess:
These bars represent the fulfilled missions now.
As there are "only" three missions, the 4th bar should represent monetary gifts.
So, money is still useful when dealing with CS, but it's influence is outnumbered by fulfilled quests 3:1.

So then where do the CS elections fit in to this?

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 12:34 AM
I think the Bars are nothing but a SINGLE bar for ALL the realtionship (Angry/Neutral/Friend/Ally)

Instead of one bar at time.

I think it's not more than just a simplified UI change, dont' think it's tied to anything at all. why should it?

Deggial
Mar 13, 2012, 12:35 AM
... there's no way a human player can signal to the AI he/she is going to go to war,...

As I proposed in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11279060&postcount=29), there *are* ways to make this work! :)

Whether or not a player will like such a constraint, is another question. I think, it could be an interesting feature to be forced to plan your wars ahead.

dexters
Mar 13, 2012, 12:38 AM
As I proposed in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11279060&postcount=29), there *are* ways to make this work! :)

Whether or not a player will like such a constraint, is another question. I think, it could be an interesting feature to be forced to plan your wars ahead.

Neat idea, but I'm not sure that will even be considered in the game.

After all the good drips of info, the recent news of no espionage support for multiplayer seems to confirm that espionage may not be functional against the human player which is worrisome. I hope that even if this is the case, the AI gets a completely different set of data from the human side for SP games so they still technically have use for their spies. My biggest concern is that it is a human only feature that is used to show-off the AI but something the game can't handle against the human player. Human only game features, especially something as big as espionage is something I've always railed against for a 4x game.

I hope that some thought goes into this.

Now I wish I had used my 1 question for the Ask Dennis Shirk Contest to ask them about that. :(

snarzberry
Mar 13, 2012, 12:41 AM
At least some of the features of espionage are human only, such as 'they are planning to attack civ X in 15 turns'.

dexters
Mar 13, 2012, 12:42 AM
At least some of the features of espionage are human only, such as 'they are planning to attack civ X in 15 turns'.

You know this for a fact?

turingmachine
Mar 13, 2012, 12:44 AM
You know this for a fact?

I think it was the PC Gamer article that said the intrigue part of espionage was turned off in MP.

AriochIV
Mar 13, 2012, 12:45 AM
Intrigue obviously won't work against a human player. They've already said that it will be disabled in multiplayer games.

I'm not worried about intrigue being "exploited" by the human player. The AI cheats plenty as it is.

dexters
Mar 13, 2012, 12:52 AM
Intrigue obviously won't work against a human player. They've already said that it will be disabled in multiplayer games.

I'm not worried about intrigue being "exploited" by the human player. The AI cheats plenty as it is.

Which cheats? I had suggested the AI get specific information cheats in lieu of intrigue not working, but perhaps you can itemize current cheats as well.

I'm not aware of any overt cheating outside of specific bonuses given to it and happiness bonuses.

snarzberry
Mar 13, 2012, 01:17 AM
You know this for a fact?

No, only assuming. Like you said in your earlier post, how could an AI spy report that I am planning to attack civ Y in ten turns? It seems to me that if we are going to get reports on upcoming AI behaviour that there will not be an analog that the AI spies have access to, how could there be? Yes, as you said, if there has been an agreement to DoW in ten turns then that might be learned by an AI spy. But I remember seeing the specific mention of planning war 15 turns in advance and that knowledge being learned by a spy. So that rules out the 'lets declare in ten turns' scenario, unless the rules for those agreements are going to be changed, which is possible. It looks to me like there is going to be some info on upcoming AI behaviour available from spies that is unique to the human. I could be wrong of course.

aziantuntija
Mar 13, 2012, 04:10 AM
The good thing is that if you make a mistake and leave a catapult in front it may yet be able to be saved. This will certainly add tactical depth to combat.

Not mention that it will greatly help the AI, since now the AI don’t have to pay so dearly when making a mistake.

Trias
Mar 13, 2012, 05:51 AM
Not mention that it will greatly help the AI, since now the AI don’t have to pay so dearly when making a mistake.

From the comments of the devs in various articles that seems to be the primary motivation for the change in the combat system. (i.e. change the system such that it is easier for the AI to deal with.)

Deggial
Mar 13, 2012, 06:58 AM
Sorry for being so late in my response. I didn't see you refered to my post.

So then where do the CS elections fit in to this?

The more the bars are filled (=recently solved quests), the higher your impact to the elections. Just a slight variation of the present system.

I think the Bars are nothing but a SINGLE bar for ALL the realtionship (Angry/Neutral/Friend/Ally)

Instead of one bar at time.

I think it's not more than just a simplified UI change, dont' think it's tied to anything at all. why should it?

Look at this screenshot, please:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2012/03/civ5gandkscreen2.jpg

Prague's 3rd slot is partly filled, all others are empty.

My arguments:
- We know already that there will be up to 3 different CS quests at the same time
- We know that mony will still have impact, but not as much as in vanilla CiV.
- We know that the bars will not be filled in any regular order (e.g. from left to right), but can be filled unindependently.
- The slots are not "all or nothing", but can be partly filled and (probably) have a decay each.

All of this doesn't fit to your theory about a simplified UI. But I think, it strengthens my theory of beeing the representations of fulfilled quests + money spent.

SalemSage
Mar 13, 2012, 07:05 AM
Actually, I think that the City State bar could work like this:

In the above screenshot, the third slot is filled. What if the middle of the bar is 'neutral'? If you have a positive relationship, the right bars start to become filled, from left to right. If you're unfriendly with them, the left bars start to fill, from right to left. Filling the two right bars would mean you're allied.

Ugh, it's difficult to type out exactly what I mean, but I get the feeling that's how CS influence will be shown.

Uberfrog
Mar 13, 2012, 07:14 AM
Actually, I think it's likely that the bar divisions go Enemy - Angry - Neutral - Friendly - Ally. Therefore it's quite reasonable that just the third bar will be partly filled to indicate a neutral city state on the way to becoming friendly. I don't think it makes sense for each quest to have its own bar as (surely?) completing a quest can only be a good thing.

Edit- ah SalemSage is saying the same thing. This is what I get for leaving threads open in tabs :)

Deggial
Mar 13, 2012, 07:50 AM
Angry - Neutral - Friendly - Ally (4 Slots, so without "Enemy")

Well yes, I see your points now. If you take as given, that the middle position is the "Point Zero" and not the very left side.

At least, the "Great Prophet Screenshot" doesn't disprov this agrument. Even more, there is this little button at the bar's tip. It can be seen at said creenshot, too. And: there is only *one* small button despite the fact that *two* slots are filled.

OK, OK, I capitulate to this evidence! It's just a new UI representation with neutral status in the middle and negative/positiv values to the left/right.

Monthar
Mar 13, 2012, 10:00 AM
Neutral is the center dividing line not one of the slots. So it's: Enemy|Angry|Friendly|Allied

SammyKhalifa
Mar 13, 2012, 10:05 AM
Angry - Neutral - Friendly - Ally (4 Slots, so without "Enemy")

Well yes, I see your points now. If you take as given, that the middle position is the "Point Zero" and not the very left side.

At least, the "Great Prophet Screenshot" doesn't disprov this agrument. Even more, there is this little button at the bar's tip. It can be seen at said creenshot, too. And: there is only *one* small button despite the fact that *two* slots are filled.

OK, OK, I capitulate to this evidence! It's just a new UI representation with neutral status in the middle and negative/positiv values to the left/right.

I guess. Is that really that much easier to understand than just leaving it the way it is, though?

Monthar
Mar 13, 2012, 10:08 AM
The change to the bar is probably for helping colorblind folks. After all it's easier to see section on a bar filled than to see different colors, especially when those colors are green, blue and red, since the most common type of color blindness is red/green.

SammyKhalifa
Mar 13, 2012, 10:13 AM
Ah very true, good point.

dexters
Mar 13, 2012, 10:23 AM
I don't think it's meant for colorblind per se, there's actually a radial dot on the bar itself, so it may be a direct measure of your 'relative' influence over the city state or rather, the city-state's relative leaning toward or away from you.

with the possibility of rigging elections or coup, this introduces internal city state politics into the equation. The friendly CS will lean closer to you than the neutral and hostile ones.

And I suppose this will be randomized now.

Joemarzen
Mar 13, 2012, 10:51 AM
I was worried about spy's at first. The fact that they don't show up till later in the game makes me feel a lot better. I think they'd have too much potential to give random advantage in the early game. Like if you found Eldorado as Spain.

Gre_Magus
Mar 13, 2012, 01:01 PM
Quick thought I had reading about the ability to warn another civ if someone is planning to attack them. Wouldn't it be neat if you could lie about that? There are several ways you could implement that, and certainly some draw backs, but it could add another layer to the intrigue.

theadder
Mar 13, 2012, 01:28 PM
Quick thought I had reading about the ability to warn another civ if someone is planning to attack them. Wouldn't it be neat if you could lie about that? There are several ways you could implement that, and certainly some draw backs, but it could add another layer to the intrigue.

That sounds appealing; I'm unsure that the AI could cope with it, though. It might also be difficult to ensure that the other AIs understood what had happened.

I could see it becoming very difficult for any of the parties to know that they had been deceived; at that point it becomes a vehicle for achieving whatever you like with no consequences.

At that stage, perhaps the design has to be reduced to a % chance for the lie to fail? That doesn't seem like so much fun.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 01:50 PM
That sounds appealing; I'm unsure that the AI could cope with it, though. It might also be difficult to ensure that the other AIs understood what had happened.

I could see it becoming very difficult for any of the parties to know that they had been deceived; at that point it becomes a vehicle for achieving whatever you like with no consequences.

At that stage, perhaps the design has to be reduced to a % chance for the lie to fail? That doesn't seem like so much fun.

Not necessairly, if after 15 turns (which is the amount it takes to prepare for war by AI) the AI doesn't get declared war on they know you lied to them. that sounds simple to me.

theadder
Mar 13, 2012, 01:56 PM
Not necessairly, if after 15 turns (which is the amount it takes to prepare for war by AI) the AI doesn't get declared war on they know you lied to them. that sounds simple to me.

Well, there are two problems with that:

The first is that changing circumstances might lead the AI to change the plan and not attack; I am hoping that it isn't locked in 15 turns in advance regardless of what happens in the meantime. That would be pretty silly. It ought not to be irrevocably committed at that stage. It is presumably a plan and not a total commitment.

In the second more specific case, what if knowledge of the leaked information itself causes a change in the plans? If Civilisation A discovers that Civilisation B knows the plan, then that is a reasonable ground for cancelling or delaying it. Hopefully it will be that sophisticated. If the AI planning the attack cannot ever find out that I have leaked the information, then that is a pretty large flaw; the last thing that we need is more mechanics that the AI doesn't really understand.

Gre_Magus
Mar 13, 2012, 01:58 PM
That sounds appealing; I'm unsure that the AI could cope with it, though. It might also be difficult to ensure that the other AIs understood what had happened.

There are definitely some drawbacks, but I think some of them could be dealt with.
When your spy discovers a civ's plans, you get "proof" of what that civ is planning on doing, which is noted by the engine.
When you talk to another civ, you get a prompt like, "I have a serious matter to discuss", and then something like "The treacherous _____ are planning to attack you" with a list of all the other civs you have contact with. If you have "proof" of a civ's plans to attack, then that civ has a little icon next its name, and if you choose it, the warning is issued normally. If you choose a civ for which you don't have proof, a pop-up says, "We don't have any proof of these allegations" and you can choose to cancel the warning, manufacture false "proof", or issue the warning anyway. Alternatively, "manufacture false war plans" might be a mission you have to give your spy, with a chance of success based on the target civ's actual likelihood of attacking the civ you want to falsely warn.
In either case, if you issue the warning without proof, depending on your relationship and some other modifiers, the civ you are warning may just take the advice, publicly denounce you as an agitator, or secretly warn the civ you've accused of what you're doing.
If you do have proof (whether legitimate or manufactured), the civ you've warned might check your allegations with their own spy, confront the civ you've warned, or launch a pre-emptive strike. If they decide they don't believe you (check their relationship with you, your reputation for being honest, their relationship with the other civ in question, their own spy's intelligence), they could just thank you for the warning and ignore it, start to be suspicious about your motives, or publicly denounce you.
And there's no reason the AI can't do all of this with another AI civ.
And if we want the human player to be susceptible to this sort of spying, the game just needs to add a "plan war against X" button that you have to press x turns before war can actually be declared. People might not like the idea that they can't declare war on a whim, but from a "realism" perspective it makes sense that your army and ministers and all of that have to have some time to prepare for war. There can always be exceptions (i.e., if the enemy has moved units close to your borders).

theadder
Mar 13, 2012, 02:03 PM
There are definitely some drawbacks, but I think some of them could be dealt with.
When your spy discovers a civ's plans, you get "proof" of what that civ is planning on doing, which is noted by the engine.
When you talk to another civ, you get a prompt like, "I have a serious matter to discuss", and then something like "The treacherous _____ are planning to attack you" with a list of all the other civs you have contact with. If you have "proof" of a civ's plans to attack, then that civ has a little icon next its name, and if you choose it, the warning is issued normally. If you choose a civ for which you don't have proof, a pop-up says, "We don't have any proof of these allegations" and you can choose to cancel the warning, manufacture false "proof", or issue the warning anyway. Alternatively, "manufacture false war plans" might be a mission you have to give your spy, with a chance of success based on the target civ's actual likelihood of attacking the civ you want to falsely warn.
In either case, if you issue the warning without proof, depending on your relationship and some other modifiers, the civ you are warning may just take the advice, publicly denounce you as an agitator, or secretly warn the civ you've accused of what you're doing.
If you do have proof (whether legitimate or manufactured), the civ you've warned might check your allegations with their own spy, confront the civ you've warned, or launch a pre-emptive strike. If they decide they don't believe you (check their relationship with you, your reputation for being honest, their relationship with the other civ in question, their own spy's intelligence), they could just thank you for the warning and ignore it, start to be suspicious about your motives, or publicly denounce you.
And there's no reason the AI can't do all of this with another AI civ.
And if we want the human player to be susceptible to this sort of spying, the game just needs to add a "plan war against X" button that you have to press x turns before war can actually be declared. People might not like the idea that they can't declare war on a whim, but from a "realism" perspective it makes sense that your army and ministers and all of that have to have some time to prepare for war. There can always be exceptions (i.e., if the enemy has moved units close to your borders).

It isn't going to be in operation for human players in multi-player it seems; in fact, it seems that it won't work for the AI in multi-player games either from the interviews and so on.

I don't think that the rest of that system is likely; manufacturing proof aside, the lack of it is an admission of a lie. It is also too complicated for the game to take account of properly.

I can't see the designers removing the ability to make instant war either; an interesting set of ideas, but unlikely.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 02:25 PM
Well, there are two problems with that:

The first is that changing circumstances might lead the AI to change the plan and not attack; I am hoping that it isn't locked in 15 turns in advance regardless of what happens in the meantime. That would be pretty silly. It ought not to be irrevocably committed at that stage. It is presumably a plan and not a total commitment.

In the second more specific case, what if knowledge of the leaked information itself causes a change in the plans? If Civilisation A discovers that Civilisation B knows the plan, then that is a reasonable ground for cancelling or delaying it. Hopefully it will be that sophisticated. If the AI planning the attack cannot ever find out that I have leaked the information, then that is a pretty large flaw; the last thing that we need is more mechanics that the AI doesn't really understand.

I don't see the problem about that. It makes sense to me if you ask me.

If you hear that somebody said that I'm planning an invasion, I'd change it and throw the person who leaked the info under the bus.

CivilizedPlayer
Mar 13, 2012, 03:08 PM
[QUOTE]You know this for a fact?[/QUOTE

Yes. I specifically remember reading a pre-GDC article saying something like "The AI is smart (and nasty) enough to plan an attack 15 turns in advance. And now spies can warn you of this." So it's true. I haven't heard anything about spies "dying", which concerns me. If they're that rare, than can they be killed? If they died easily, espionage would just be annoying. And if they didn't die, it'd be boring. So I'm wondering how that works.

And there's no reason to believe that the AI couldn't figure out you're planning an attack. Sure, it wouldn't know who you planned to attack, or when. But it already has the "you're massed near my borders, explain yourself" function. Who's to say it couldn't adress me by saying "My spies are telling me you're building up your military, why?".

Eagle Pursuit
Mar 13, 2012, 03:13 PM
I don't know if you can lose a spy, but they can definitely get caught. Wouldn't it be cool if you had to trade an enemy spy or gold, food, or a luxury resource to get your spy back after it's been captured.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 03:16 PM
If you fail at a mission your spy is executed.

Eagle Pursuit
Mar 13, 2012, 03:19 PM
It's too bad you only get a limited number of them then. I hope the failure rate is pretty low or that the Espionage interface explains the chances of success prior to each attempt.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 03:33 PM
It's an off map unit, it still gets experienced. For example a brand new spy shouldn't try to rig the election or coup the City State because it will most likely fail, but an experienced (highest rank) spy will be more succesful.

And you get one per each era starting from Reinassance (plus one for Britian)

As well, you re-gain them after few turns after you lose them.

janboruta
Mar 13, 2012, 03:34 PM
But if he is executed, you will have to wait a couple of turns before a new, rookie spy appears - it's still painful, because you can lose an experienced agent. The number of spies available is limited by the era you're in, and national intelligence agency gives an extra spy. That's what we know at the moment.

edit: gah, ninja'd :D

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 03:45 PM
I'm a posting ninja! :ninja:

CivilizedPlayer
Mar 13, 2012, 04:33 PM
As well, you re-gain them after few turns after you lose them.

Oh that's good news. Otherwise spies would be frustrating. Losing one and waiting until the next era to get another would just be silly. As it is, I'm afraid that this system will be a little annoying and unrealistic. I think it will be kind of weird to have no control over how many spies you have. In other words, all civs will always have the exact same amount of spies, aside from when one is captured.

theadder
Mar 13, 2012, 07:24 PM
I don't see the problem about that. It makes sense to me if you ask me.

If you hear that somebody said that I'm planning an invasion, I'd change it and throw the person who leaked the info under the bus.

Yes, but it is the requirement that the AI knows when it has been deceived that is tricky.

We'll just have to see what they decide on.

moysturfurmer
Mar 13, 2012, 08:08 PM
Oh that's good news. Otherwise spies would be frustrating. Losing one and waiting until the next era to get another would just be silly. As it is, I'm afraid that this system will be a little annoying and unrealistic. I think it will be kind of weird to have no control over how many spies you have. In other words, all civs will always have the exact same amount of spies, aside from when one is captured.

If you build a National Intelligence Agency you can get an extra spy. And it's almost a given that some wonders will be modified/added to either make your spies better, or give you extra ones etc (The Kremlin? The Pentagon? Etc?)

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 13, 2012, 08:17 PM
And British get an extra spy too (as part of their modified UA I believe)

Montov
Mar 14, 2012, 04:32 AM
As well, you re-gain them after few turns after you lose them.

Is it? Couldn't it be that you need to wait until the next era (could be a few turns) to receive a new spy? I think the consequenses of reviving a spy that soon will make players do risky missions, while it would be fun to be able to 'train' a spy before you risk its life.

MARDUK80
Mar 14, 2012, 06:14 AM
And British get an extra spy too (as part of their modified UA I believe)

"And yes, the British get a spy named James."

http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/13/civilization-v-gods-and-kings-lets-you-wage-holy-wars-preview/


Looks like good old 007 is back On Her Majesty's Secret Service ;)

craig123
Mar 14, 2012, 06:17 AM
It's just a pity that Britain isn't in the game. :rolleyes:

shaglio
Mar 14, 2012, 09:15 AM
It's too bad you only get a limited number of them then. I hope the failure rate is pretty low or that the Espionage interface explains the chances of success prior to each attempt.

I'm pretty sure in one of the articles (or maybe the Ed Beach interview) they were quoting specific percentages for their spy's chance of success, which would lead me to believe that the information will be in the Espionage Interface.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 14, 2012, 01:14 PM
And if you fail a mission you get a GIANT negative diplomatic hit. if you fail at a CS mission they could even declare war on you, and knowing the lovely AI, they will hate you if you do that in their cities too (normal civilziations)

dexters
Mar 14, 2012, 03:00 PM
And if you fail a mission you get a GIANT negative diplomatic hit. if you fail at a CS mission they could even declare war on you, and knowing the lovely AI, they will hate you if you do that in their cities too (normal civilziations)

Are you guessing based on an artilcle? There's no indication they will declare war by default. Although i wouldn't rule it out as an option, it would have nothing to do with the AI being lovely or however you consider it.

There has to be a set number of consequences of espionage, and I consider war a possible outcome, though losing both your spy and getting DoW seems extreme, and we have no information to back up any claim that they will DoW because they hate you.

The same preview articles also talk about city states hating you and still giving you gifts if you bully them with military force. I don't see why this would be any different.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 14, 2012, 03:57 PM
Are you guessing based on an artilcle? There's no indication they will declare war by default. Although i wouldn't rule it out as an option, it would have nothing to do with the AI being lovely or however you consider it.

There has to be a set number of consequences of espionage, and I consider war a possible outcome, though losing both your spy and getting DoW seems extreme, and we have no information to back up any claim that they will DoW because they hate you.

The same preview articles also talk about city states hating you and still giving you gifts if you bully them with military force. I don't see why this would be any different.

:rolleyes: no, sure, let's do it your way, let's just be happy you tried to steal your technology and still be friends despite you trying to steal one of our cities by starting a coup.. nope, no hard feeligns.

Like please..

Louis XXIV
Mar 14, 2012, 04:43 PM
No need to be sarcastic. There are plenty of real world examples where espionage actions led to hostility, but certainly did not lead to war. How about the attempted assassination of a Ukrainian Presidential candidate. He ended up surviving and winning the election and, last I checked, Ukraine hasn't gone to war in the last 6 years or so.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 14, 2012, 04:58 PM
If you continue to fail, you will eventually get into war, that's it. Obviously if Egypt keeps syping on you woudln't you feel threatened?

Louis XXIV
Mar 14, 2012, 05:12 PM
Yeah, but if Egypt's army is bigger than mine or I don't feel like going to war, I'll try other options besides war.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 14, 2012, 06:01 PM
Yeah, but if Egypt's army is bigger than mine or I don't feel like going to war, I'll try other options besides war.

But what if it's smaller?

Louis XXIV
Mar 14, 2012, 06:28 PM
Well, now we're talking about something very different from declaring war by default. Instead, it sounds like war is one of many options to deal with espionage.

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 14, 2012, 09:48 PM
You can still bribe City-States. :( Just adding more quests won't fix a system that's fundamentally broken.


No, it was mentioned previously. And it's a Pantheon Belief. "Faith" is the name of the resource.

edit: The "National Intelligence Agency" sounds like a National Wonder. Which leads me to "wonder" if National Wonders are included in the total of 9 new Wonders. If so, we're already there (if Michelangelo's David is a Wonder).

I agree Arioch. The best approach would have been to implement Gazebo's City-State Diplomacy mod. In there, too, you could still bribe City-States, but the cost of doing so was prohibitive.

Aussie.

CTH
Mar 15, 2012, 02:05 AM
I agree Arioch. The best approach would have been to implement Gazebo's City-State Diplomacy mod. In there, too, you could still bribe City-States, but the cost of doing so was prohibitive.

Aussie.

Even if you can bribe city states, (may have increased in cost, we do not know that yet) new missions would make it possible to compete with richer civs for city-states.

dexters
Mar 15, 2012, 03:28 AM
I agree Arioch. The best approach would have been to implement Gazebo's City-State Diplomacy mod. In there, too, you could still bribe City-States, but the cost of doing so was prohibitive.

Aussie.

We'll see. Multiple quest-lines was requested by myself and many others because the issue right now is bribing is the most effective way to get what you want when their questlines end prematurely with kill city-state X and that's often not a reasonable request. I'm glad they put multiple quests in, as it was obvious and a common fan request.

The quests themselves are also subdivided into global quests and quests specific to civs will greatly help. And we don't really know the specific type of quests or how gold may have been scaled in terms of influence. I believe some articles indicate some quests fullfill themselves, like reaching a certain faith quota, They will likely also remove or readjust its patronage buffs that extend our gold gifting. Between Piety and Patronage I can't see both social policy trees NOT getting revamped given Faith as a new currency will need a social policy alignment and patronage likely will no longer work as intended with espionage, which will likely also need a SP buff somewhere. In anycase, We just haven't heard about them as they fall more on balance/miscellaneous issues that don't make good bullet points for PR junkets.

Further, we also know city State influences have been overhauled. There are now 4 bars to represent influence. You can also bully a city state to get what you want, not to mention espionage missions to overthrow governments or rig their elections. All those are only worth doing if bribery is either a high level option (ie: significant work needs to be put in before you can bribe a CS, or it's cost is increased or influence capped). So saying bribing is still in and therefore City states are still broken is a bit premature.

Lastly, with 1 spy at renaissance and 1 new spy per era (industrial / ww1 / modern ) + 1 with intelligence agency, It's reasonable for those going for diplomatic wins to deploy at least all 5 of their spies in city states. This should significantly increase difficulty of a diplomatic win, especially if gold is nerfed, and I lean towards this view.

theadder
Mar 15, 2012, 03:32 AM
I agree Arioch. The best approach would have been to implement Gazebo's City-State Diplomacy mod. In there, too, you could still bribe City-States, but the cost of doing so was prohibitive.

Aussie.

I thought that the gold costs/effectiveness were also being cut for G&K also? I'm not sure that they have said how severely, but I think it has been mentioned.

It may well be that the quests are the only way to ensure reliable support from the city states.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 03:34 AM
I really hope people are not thinking that the "four bars" have ANYTHING to do with Quests, it's just change in how influence is portrayed... I think..

dexters
Mar 15, 2012, 03:45 AM
I really hope people are not thinking that the "four bars" have ANYTHING to do with Quests, it's just change in how influence is portrayed... I think..

We don't know. There's really no point changing how the current influence is portrayed with 4 bars like that as the current gui has no issue with it.

The bars could be a timer of sorts showing how long until your espionage mission completes, or there could well be intermediate stages (small steps) within the current relationship status.

But that's a minor minor point, there are at least three much bigger things why complaining about gold and city state influence is premature.

Here's an example of the new complexity of city states from a newly translated interview.
(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=456323)

GG: The changes to the City State system sound interesting. Can you disclose a bit more about their quests?
DS: Next to the already mentioned ones, like 'kill x barbarians' or global quests like 'build the most wonders in y turns' there is the addition of a quest type where you have to retrieve a tribute payment from another City State. If you come with an army that is strong enough this can work for you and you'll get the gold and perhaps even a few workers.
But behind your back the threatened City State can complain about you to another player and plee for their help against you.

That sounds like a private civ specific quest being given out. Sounds fun.

craig123
Mar 15, 2012, 05:33 AM
I'm pretty sure it's not 4 bars. I looks more like one bar which moves right or left from the centre (presumably for positive or negative influence).

The two screenshots here seem to back this up:
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2012/02/6287442e8b2a667821e64bdbdcbd3e25.jpg
http://www.desktopreview.com/assets/11409.jpg

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 15, 2012, 06:19 AM
All that said & done, though, Gazebo's approach was pretty sweet, & deserved to be made a fully integral part of the game. I don't doubt that I'll be making use of it in the expansion-assuming he upgrades it!

Aussie.

Seek
Mar 15, 2012, 10:19 AM
All that said & done, though, Gazebo's approach was pretty sweet, & deserved to be made a fully integral part of the game. I don't doubt that I'll be making use of it in the expansion-assuming he upgrades it!

Aussie.

I don't doubt that he will!

At one point there was some discussion of incorporating CSD into VEM, but there was feedback from a few players that it required too much micro and they didn't enjoy it, so it was left out. Firaxis probably took the same tack and didn't add the mechanic to the expansion for the same reason.

TheKingOfBigOz
Mar 15, 2012, 03:08 PM
I'm pretty sure it's not 4 bars. I looks more like one bar which moves right or left from the centre (presumably for positive or negative influence).

The two screenshots here seem to back this up:
http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2012/02/6287442e8b2a667821e64bdbdcbd3e25.jpg
http://www.desktopreview.com/assets/11409.jpg

I've been saying that all along but nobody ever seems to care to listen xD.

I always said that it's just one bar instead of four seperate bars (like it was done in vanilla) AND it has nothing relating to Quests (well, except influence but that they don't fill up individually)

AriochIV
Mar 16, 2012, 01:08 AM
I've been saying that all along but nobody ever seems to care to listen xD. I always said that it's just one bar instead of four seperate bars (like it was done in vanilla) AND it has nothing relating to Quests (well, except influence but that they don't fill up individually)
I think most people accept this as obvious, but that won't stop the odd weird theory from popping out.

Deggial
Mar 16, 2012, 01:49 AM
I think I was the not the only one with wired theories - but I am cured from it, now :D

The problem with theories is, that, without evidence, they are just a guesswork. At least, my theory was based on facts known so far (up to 3 quests + money for influence). As long as there was no counter evidence, my theory was as valid as any other - and maybe even more likely as some.

The counter evidence that broke my theory was the finding of this little button at the bar's end. It was never brought into discussion before and after I recognized it, it made my theory highly unlikely.

That's how science works: Develop a theory that explains reality best and try to find facts that *contradict* this theory.