Civ5- A Whole New Civ

Naokaukodem · Aug 4, 2009

rysmiel said:
This is not a feature; this is a bug. Your notion of "honest" number of units seems flawed to me; it's "honest" if you think everyone should be warmongers and the game should reward that, which are not premises I agree with.

A bug? LOL. That's not the only time you reffer common Civ4 mechanisms as bugs, and I think you are obviously too extremist in that. No, that's not a bug. And, apparently, it is still possible to win a cultural victory in Deity.

So you think AI have too many units in higher difficulty levels? That should make you happy, as it is more difficult to conquer them. If warmongers had the same lattitude of movement in Deity than they have in Noble, then war would be overpowered. Then, we could go into war without parcimony. Then, war would be one good if not the only one mean to win. With AI increasing its number of units, "warmongers" have to be very carefull of what they do. And to say all, I don't see anymore "warmongers", they are just players like any other one, using the thin possibilities they have in Deity, Immortal or Emperor. In those difficulty levels, you can't engage a successfull war anytime. Yo have to be very carefull of the strategic situation, in order to make those wars the shorter possible, the more efficient possible. You can't just throw your troops into war anytime because you are a "warmonger". In this regard, you should know that winning a war in higher difficulty levels is as difficult as winning by other means. Again, more troops in higher difficulty levels lower the range of action of "warmongers".

Of course, if you want to conquer the world with the Bible, you may be disappointed. First because culture can't go very far in Civ4. You would be surprised that i militate for a deeper culture in Civ5. That would be the premise of a culture conquest. But I do not deny the utility of wars, as it is a good alternative to other means, the more when you have to do strategic choices about what you want to build in your cities: buildings, or units.

What i like in wars is their violence. You take what you want by force. And I have to say that in Civ4, the violence of wars is pretty damaged, due to the must-have combination of artillery and usual troops. It's not the same in Civ4 than in Civ2. I prefer when you can kill directly a unit with another one. In Civ2, when you built Legions or Howitzers first, you could conquer the world. That was fun. And that's really the only thing I can ask from a game like Civ. I do not call fun the fact that we have to reverse-engineering the game in order to win. Some find it fun that way. I do not. And I prefer to win than to lose anytime. So it would be cool if Civ5 would be much more "organic", instinctive, in order to beat the game without reverse-engineering it. It would mean a much more logical AI and diplomacy, call it smarter or whatelse, in all cases more adaptative. (in opposition to scripted and obscure personnalities)

So as you see, I do not see war as the ultimate thing to do to beat higher difficulty levels, far from it. I even find it too soft, for particular reasons I tried to figure out above.

Chance of cultural conversions of each individual unit depending on the difference between attacker's culture and defender's culture, for one thing. Then see how it plays and tweak it.

And how would you do, in higher difficulty levels, to conquer the last civ that was protected geographically by others, when they nearly reach the cultural victory? Ah, my bad, that's precisely what you want: no wars at all, only cultural and buildings (! how boring and horrible).

Be just awared that wars, in higher difficulty levels, are just another mean the player have, among all the other means. If that last one to be soften, then this is all the balance that would go, as Civ is about building wonders, buildings AND units.

The balance is already pretty good in Civ4.

Argetnyx · Aug 4, 2009

Who are these gamers you speak of and why should a new version of a game not be for them?

The gamers that I speak of are the ones who do not like a good strategic game, but a quick, afternoon conquest where you don't even connect to the game at all. They were the ones that the makers of civ4 changed the game for, and ruined it for.

warpstorm · Aug 4, 2009

Oh, that's what I was afraid of. I'm afraid I might fall into that category as do most of my friends. (Although I love good strategy games (both long and short) - I just feel that excessive micromanagement and obsession for reality over fun do not make a game better).

rysmiel · Aug 4, 2009

phoinix said:
You're right it is more complex, so if I had to choose which one I'd prefer, I'd go with the abstract routes with just graphics representation. You can omit the whole conversion of the traders to individual units and the choice of which ship your sub will attack and the basic mechanics are still the same. I feel that caravan-type units give a more immersive experience to the player but prevent more accurate mechanics plus they have to be built by someone, and that's not something I'd like to be bothered with.

I would far favour caravan-type units over abstract trade routes, myself.

Because without interception chance every trading ship would be trackable from any submarine and the trade route would cease to exist. Not to mention that traders wouldnt stand a chance. So it would be reduced to a trivial "find target-destroy-repeat".

So you equip your convoys with defenders and it becomes a military issue.

Giving orders to individual trade ships to avoid interception? Sounds awful.

How is it any more so than moving any military unit, worker or settler individually now ?

rysmiel · Aug 4, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
So you think AI have too many units in higher difficulty levels? That should make you happy, as it is more difficult to conquer them.

Of course I think the AI should be harder to beat at higher levels, just not in ways that force the game to be more about military. Arguing that you have to be better at war to win at high levels is not countering my position here.

What i like in wars is their violence. You take what you want by force.

That's what I mean by "warmonger", dude.

In Civ2, when you built Legions or Howitzers first, you could conquer the world. That was fun.

I know you think that was fun; you have made this eminently clear.

I think that sucks as a gaming experience. It might as well be Risk.

And I prefer to win than to lose anytime.

You want to win whether you can be bothered getting any good at the game or not ?

So it would be cool if Civ5 would be much more "organic", instinctive,

It seems to me that even a brief examination of this forum and what different people thing would work will show that "instinctive" varies enough between people to be pretty useless as a criterion for designing a new game.

And how would you do, in higher difficulty levels, to conquer the last civ that was protected geographically by others, when they nearly reach the cultural victory?

Why would conquering it be the only sensible way to counter that, or the desirable one ?

Ah, my bad, that's precisely what you want: no wars at all, only cultural and buildings (! how boring and horrible).

I did not say no wars at all, and I'll thank you not to put those words in my mouth.

The balance is already pretty good in Civ4.

No, it's not. Military has been too strong in every Civ game to date and Civ 4 is no exception.

deanej · Aug 4, 2009

Argetnyx said:
The gamers that I speak of are the ones who do not like a good strategic game, but a quick, afternoon conquest where you don't even connect to the game at all. They were the ones that the makers of civ4 changed the game for, and ruined it for.

That's what the majority of people buying any game are. The majority of people that bought civ are not here on CFC, or any other fan site for that matter. They bought the game, played a few quick games, had a bit of fun, and moved on. There is a reason the SimCity franchise is dead: SimCity 4 did not cater to that crowd at all, and it was not a big earner, so EA just decided to let it die. Do you want the same to happen to civ? Regardless of how much we like it, or how much Firaxis or Sid Meier likes it, if normal people don't like it, 2K Games may well decide to cut civ if civ 5 winds up too complex for normal people to play.

rysmiel · Aug 4, 2009

deanej said:
That's what the majority of people buying any game are. The majority of people that bought civ are not here on CFC, or any other fan site for that matter.

Yes, but if Firaxis were assigning their priorities based solely on the number of people who want to play the game a particular way, there'd be a sight less sffort going on the relatively small but very vocal multiplayer community than there is.

They bought the game, played a few quick games, had a bit of fun, and moved on. There is a reason the SimCity franchise is dead: SimCity 4 did not cater to that crowd at all, and it was not a big earner, so EA just decided to let it die. Do you want the same to happen to civ?

I'd prefer no Civ 5 to lobotomised Civ 5 any day.

If what Firaxis want is to sell to people who want a couple of evenings' quick shallow fun, port Civ Rev to PCs. If what they want is to reach serious gamers, make Civ 5 deep and complex and replayable. There are markets for both, and I don't see any way the same game can be optimised for two such different audiences. (Or not without an wful lot of optional levels of complexity, which would be incredibly hard to balance.)

Argetnyx · Aug 4, 2009

That's what the majority of people buying any game are. The majority of people that bought civ are not here on CFC, or any other fan site for that matter. They bought the game, played a few quick games, had a bit of fun, and moved on. There is a reason the SimCity franchise is dead: SimCity 4 did not cater to that crowd at all, and it was not a big earner, so EA just decided to let it die. Do you want the same to happen to civ? Regardless of how much we like it, or how much Firaxis or Sid Meier likes it, if normal people don't like it, 2K Games may well decide to cut civ if civ 5 winds up too complex for normal people to play.

Normal people are the reason everything is all messed up.

deanej · Aug 4, 2009

The decision to make civ multiplayer from the start was not just about that small but vocal community. The game development process benefited from it as well, as the developers could hold off making the AI until all the gameplay features were done. If they implemented something the discovered was not fun (as happened with stuff like blind research) or couldn't be balanced (constructing military units with food) they could just throw the feature out without having to recode the AI around it. Having to code the AI for stuff that is in flux is not good.

And their are those of us who want more complexity than what civ rev has but not much more than what civ is now. I count myself in that crowd. I think civ 4 achieved the balance between being simple but learnable and in-depth but too complex. Most of my requests for civ 5 have to do with modding (such as removing the god-awful GameFont.tga and replacing it with and XML file and a bunch of separate font icons).

Naokaukodem · Aug 4, 2009

rysmiel said:
Of course I think the AI should be harder to beat at higher levels, just not in ways that force the game to be more about military. Arguing that you have to be better at war to win at high levels is not countering my position here.

It counters your position in the sense that you find more AI military troops to be an advantage for warmongers, what is not.

That's what I mean by "warmonger", dude.

So, if you like the violence of fights, and do them not or only once per game because the AI is too strong, you are a warmonger? I think liking violence has nothing to do with your ability to wage wars.

I know you think that was fun; you have made this eminently clear.

No i do not "think" it was fun, it is not an opinion there. It WAS fun, barely.

I think that sucks as a gaming experience. It might as well be Risk.

I do not see the link with the fact to conquer with regular troops being fun, nor with the fact to profit largely of a tech advance.

You want to win whether you can be bothered getting any good at the game or not ?

Reverse-engineering is not being good at the game. It is, to me at least, simply cheating. But overall, this is not my cup of tea at all.

It seems to me that even a brief examination of this forum and what different people thing would work will show that "instinctive" varies enough between people to be pretty useless as a criterion for designing a new game.

Consider yourself as the reference, for a start.

Why would conquering it be the only sensible way to counter that, or the desirable one ?

Actually it is not even the only sensible way to counter that.

By the way, with your idea, that would be culture vs culturen and the way it is nowadays implemented in Civ4 would make it impossible to catch up.

I did not say no wars at all, and I'll thank you not to put those words in my mouth.

I do not know, everytime you see an idea that "could" enhance war, you spring.

No, it's not. Military has been too strong in every Civ game to date and Civ 4 is no exception.

No, I assure you that military is not too strong in civ games.

First, the military dimension have its importance in regard of the buildings/units strategical choice.

Second, the military dimension is a good represention of what it is in reality, and thinking a game about civilizations without wars would be pretty kitsh.

Third, military has never been in Civ the only way to win. To say all, that's the last resort for dominated civs, especially in higher difficulty levels. BUT, in those AI have plenty units too. So it is pretty well balanced.

phoinix · Aug 5, 2009

rysmiel said:
So you equip your convoys with defenders and it becomes a military issue.

Well you are already at war, arent you...? You might as well assign Mona Lisas to guard your routes too, though I think that is rediculous

How is it any more so than moving any military unit, worker or settler individually now ?

Because we are talking about hundreds of individual merchants running a lot of trade routes. You want units that can literally carry anything, no matter how big it is? If not, you're bound to have many such units. And moving these units around may be manageable and enjoyable -for you- early in the game, but in the large scale of later game, that would be sooooo frustrating.

I find the military presence in civ 4 to be ok. Improving the cultural system could provide a further balancing. I wouldnt nurf the military though.

rysmiel · Aug 5, 2009

Naokaukodem said:
It counters your position in the sense that you find more AI military troops to be an advantage for warmongers, what is not.

Not what I said.

I said, and will say again, that if the higher difficulty levels are made more difficult by giving the AI a military advantage, how is that not forcing you to focus on military ?

No i do not "think" it was fun, it is not an opinion there. It WAS fun, barely.

Fun's not objective, dude.

I do not see the link with the fact to conquer with regular troops being fun, nor with the fact to profit largely of a tech advance.

Conquering with regular troops is not fun for me.

Reverse-engineering is not being good at the game. It is, to me at least, simply cheating. But overall, this is not my cup of tea at all.

You keep descirbing figuring out the tactical weaknesses of the game at any level other than military as "reverse engineering", how is this qualitatively different from playing the military part of the game better in order to beat someone ?

I do not know, everytime you see an idea that "could" enhance war, you spring.

This would be why I am encouraging war-enhancing ideas like separate attack and defence values, more strategic variety of units, exponential increase in unit capacities over time, and air units that are actual units ?

No, I assure you that military is not too strong in civ games.

I see your points and remain adamantly in disagreement with the,m

rysmiel · Aug 5, 2009

phoinix said:
Because we are talking about hundreds of individual merchants running a lot of trade routes.

Why ?

Presuming a city can build one caravan per turn (at most) if it's not building anything else, how many turns will that be the most important priority ?

I'm also thinking that caravan units should regularly upgrade with tech for capacity/movement rate over the course of the game, so that at any given point only your biggest cities are likely to be up to making a caravan in a single turn.

The balance for caravans in Civ 2 is such that it's possible to win the game by building very little else (look up "Power Democracy" if you're interested in how that works); I would very much prefer to balaknce things such that that is not doable in Civ 5.

And moving these units around may be manageable and enjoyable -for you- early in the game, but in the large scale of later game, that would be sooooo frustrating.

Not to me.

deanej · Aug 5, 2009

So the current trade routes between cities that grant commerce would be gone?

Argetnyx · Aug 5, 2009

And their are those of us who want more complexity than what civ rev has but not much more than what civ is now. I count myself in that crowd. I think civ 4 achieved the balance between being simple but learnable and in-depth but too complex. Most of my requests for civ 5 have to do with modding (such as removing the god-awful GameFont.tga and replacing it with and XML file and a bunch of separate font icons).

I don't have civ rev...................

Civ4 simplified it too much, took too much control out of the game, ruined the balance between realism and gameplay, and OH YEAH, made editing so complex that you can only do it if you have programming knowledge.

deanej · Aug 5, 2009

Argetnyx said:
made editing so complex that you can only do it if you have programming knowledge.

I would not want civ 5 to be reduced back to the civ 3 state of modding. While the editor makes it easier for people who don't know anything about computers to make mods, it is very limited. Many mods for civ 4 (such as Fall from Heaven, or even Afterworld, Gods of Old, or Final Frontier) would not be possible with civ 3's limitations. XML files are really simple to modify if you can get over the fact that you don't use a fancy editor made just for civ to modify them and do everything (actually more) the civ 3 editor does. Python or C++ knowledge is not required to make mods for civ 4.

Or, I could just use the same argument that other people have used to justify wanting more micromanagement: if someone doesn't know how to make mods for civ using the XML files, they don't deserve to make mods for civ (note: please don't send hate mail over this, I just put that sentence there to make a point).

Naokaukodem · Aug 6, 2009

rysmiel said:
Not what I said.

I said, and will say again, that if the higher difficulty levels are made more difficult by giving the AI a military advantage, how is that not forcing you to focus on military ?

I didn't say military, but war. You don't like war, but you can afford to build some units, don't you?

As I said earlier multiple times, building military troops is very important for the strategical choice of buildings. You who want more strategical choice in the game, it seems contradictory to want only culture buildings to be viable.

Fun's not objective, dude.

I didn't say such a thing. Fun is not a thought we can debate either... :rolleyes:

Conquering with regular troops is not fun for me.

But I repeat myself, I do not see the link with Risk.

By the way, I could say you back that fun is not objective either.

And we could go far like this. You don't like wars, so weither it be with catapults or regular troops you would not like it. But for someone who like Civ, it is to say wars, regular troops are a lot more bloody.

So if you don't like wars, don't say the contrary because you don't know how we can feel about it, and if you don't like war, I wonder why you play Civ in the first time.

You keep descirbing figuring out the tactical weaknesses of the game at any level other than military as "reverse engineering", how is this qualitatively different from playing the military part of the game better in order to beat someone ?

That, is only your interpretation, which is false. I never described reverse-engineering as being part of other level than military one, no more as a tactical weakness.

Reverse-engineering covers all parts of the game, this last one being a whole strategically.

And you can't separate the military dimension from the rest of the game, such as you can't play only the military part "better" all alone.

It depends on how fast you BUILD units (depending on production), when do you BUILD them (depending on your priorities), if you BUILD them (depending on your plans), how many can you BUILD them (depending of your gold), what type of units you can BUILD (depending on tech rate), etc...

And to answer to your last question, i think that the word reverse-engineering is pretty clear as it is, the difference between it and an organic, instinctive way of play is pretty clear.

This would be why I am encouraging war-enhancing ideas like separate attack and defence values

That is not enhancing war in any way.

more strategic variety of units

There are enough in the game already, especially if you consider the modern age.

exponential increase in unit capacities over time

Why? To make tech advantages more decisive, though wars with this advantage more decisive?

and air units that are actual units ?

I liked air units of Civ2, but I think that the fact they are not managed like in Civ2 in Civ4 has little to see with the fact that they can't kill units.

I see your points and remain adamantly in disagreement with the,m

You can't be in disagreement with them as they are facts.

Camikaze · Aug 6, 2009

I can't be bothered to go back and read the whole thread, but basically, I'm happy with Civ 4 (although some (I'm looking at you, Argetnyx) are not). I don't really see the need for any revolutionary or wholesale changes of existing content. Just reasonable tweaks to many things, and of course, improvements on existing ideas present in the game. Of course, several factors need to be introduced into the game, but I think that the general feel of the game, and the spirit of the game present in Civ 4, is about right.

Argetnyx · Aug 7, 2009

I would not want civ 5 to be reduced back to the civ 3 state of modding. While the editor makes it easier for people who don't know anything about computers to make mods, it is very limited. Many mods for civ 4 (such as Fall from Heaven, or even Afterworld, Gods of Old, or Final Frontier) would not be possible with civ 3's limitations. XML files are really simple to modify if you can get over the fact that you don't use a fancy editor made just for civ to modify them and do everything (actually more) the civ 3 editor does. Python or C++ knowledge is not required to make mods for civ 4.

Or, I could just use the same argument that other people have used to justify wanting more micromanagement: if someone doesn't know how to make mods for civ using the XML files, they don't deserve to make mods for civ (note: please don't send hate mail over this, I just put that sentence there to make a point).

I think the best idea for that is a mixture... Do you even know how easy it is to mod Civ3? If you wanted to add a unit, building, or tech, the editor and pediaicons file in Civ3 is straightforward and efficient. Civ4 has no useful editor, and a very twisted version of editing.

I can't be bothered to go back and read the whole thread, but basically, I'm happy with Civ 4 (although some (I'm looking at you, Argetnyx) are not). I don't really see the need for any revolutionary or wholesale changes of existing content. Just reasonable tweaks to many things, and of course, improvements on existing ideas present in the game. Of course, several factors need to be introduced into the game, but I think that the general feel of the game, and the spirit of the game present in Civ 4, is about right.

Some people can't help but point fingers....

Anyway, at least you're honest about it. I personally like the feel of Civ3, you get a sense of involvement and control that I just can't get with civ4. After reading my previous comments, I have to say I'm not the easiest to argue with.

To me, civ4 is too much of a game, I can't think of a better word. Many times, I have to think of what my next move would be in Civ3, like a chess game. It seems to me that in civ4, it's 'do this or fail'. The graphics are horrible in civ4, I'm not saying that the Civ3 graphics were great, but they worked. Civ4 graphics are too overdone (so what if the trees move, the animation takes up so much space). I personally am not a fan of the 3d graphics, they only way that they actually look good is if you made them so detailed that the space that they take up is unbearable. Have you ever zoomed in on a civ4 rifleman? He looks like he's holding a giant chocolate bar.

TigerBotHesh · Aug 7, 2009

I'd like to have the option of deciding for myself what each cities' trade routes would be, or at least exactly what Civs I am going to do trade routes with instead of having the computer do it for me automatically. That way you could shun a civ or city that you were trying to avoid, but not have to totally shut yourself off from the outside world with Mercantilism.

I'd also like to see Civ go back to having the option of establishing 'food routes' between cities to send surplus food to another city. Modern cities do not produce the food that they consume; they truck it in from other regions.

Civ5- A Whole New Civ

Millenary King

Emperor

Yumbo? Yumbo!

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Millenary King

Warlord

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Millenary King

Administrator

Emperor

Chieftain

Similar threads