Three Moves Ahead Podcast

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thyrwyn

Guardian at the Gate
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
1,289
Location
State College, PA
the link.

Thanks to Locutus for the transcript of the podcast over at we play civ.

Interesting bits (to me):

1) Confirmation of Great People arising from specialists. No random result though - will we get to choose? :)

2) Jon discusses the rational behavior diplomacy system.
So there are various things that players can do that will affect relations in dramatic ways. One example is if that if you settle very aggressively near a player it is very unlikely that you're gonna be friends with them. They will pop up and say: "What are you dong? We recognize you're doing this? And what are you going to do about it?" and you actually have the choice of two options: you can say: "Sorry, screw you. We don't care, deal with it," which is pretty much guaranteed to make an enemy of them, or you can say: "Oh, we're sorry, we didn't mean to cause an issue, and please, you know, let this not cause a strain on our relations." If you say that, and then you continue settling then everyone in the world will find out that you're a traitor and that you lie and that you're a bad person, and then they'll call you out on that.
Click to expand...
 
Thyrwyn said:
the link.

Thanks to Locutus for the transcript of the podcast over at we play civ.

Interesting bits (to me):

1) Confirmation of Great People arising from specialists. No random result though - will we get to choose? :)
Click to expand...
Either each amount is tracked separately.
OR
Whichever type makes up the most (40 Great Scientist points, 30 Great Prophet, 30 Great Merchant=a Great Scientist)

Thyrwyn said:
2) Jon discusses the rational behavior diplomacy system.
Click to expand...

Nice.. I would have liked them to have added Like/dislikes that affect citizen happiness of both Human and AI players, but that can wait.
 
Krikkitone said:
Nice.. I would have liked them to have added Like/dislikes that affect citizen happiness of both Human and AI players, but that can wait.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here? Like if an AI does something, then it affects my citizen's happiness? My actions to other AIs affect my citizen's happiness? Both seem very weird.

I'm also liking the new diplomacy, especially AIs that aren't an open book to be played liked suckers. Every strategy game has this and it bothers me to the point where I completely disregard any diplomacy because it feels like I'm just cheating. "+10! Cool now I have to never worry about getting attacked. I guess I'll just win now."
 
The most interesting part in my opinion was on piety, one of the branches you spend culture on. It's definitely not a replacement for religion, but seems to provide happiness bonus.
 
Ambassador said:
The most interesting part in my opinion was on piety, one of the branches you spend culture on. It's definitely not a replacement for religion, but seems to provide happiness bonus.
Click to expand...

Besides the huge diplomacy modifier, a happiness bonus was all that religion in Civ 4 was to me anyway. So getting rid of the old form and replacing it with a branch dedicated to happiness seems like fine transition for religion. I'm becoming very interested in the unique bonuses that the civs will gets after the discussion of a theoretical religious type leader.
 
The possibilities are becoming more and more intriguing. . .
 
Riot_Starter said:
I'm not sure what you mean here? Like if an AI does something, then it affects my citizen's happiness? My actions to other AIs affect my citizen's happiness? Both seem very weird.
Click to expand...

Basically yes... Attacking an ally you've had for 100 turns would make your people unhappy.. as would declaring peace with a long time enemy. (of course you would end the War weariness that way too)

Allying with an ally of my ally would make my people happy...

This would essentially allows you to still 'play' the AI.. but that AI can 'play' you then as well. This keeps both human and AI players acting more like real nations.

Riot_Starter said:
I'm also liking the new diplomacy, especially AIs that aren't an open book to be played liked suckers. Every strategy game has this and it bothers me to the point where I completely disregard any diplomacy because it feels like I'm just cheating. "+10! Cool now I have to never worry about getting attacked. I guess I'll just win now."
Click to expand...

I do like this but I want there to actually be a diplomacy game that can be played.
 
Krikkitone said:
Basically yes... Attacking an ally you've had for 100 turns would make your people unhappy.. as would declaring peace with a long time enemy. (of course you would end the War weariness that way too)

Allying with an ally of my ally would make my people happy...

This would essentially allows you to still 'play' the AI.. but that AI can 'play' you then as well. This keeps both human and AI players acting more like real nations.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of things that force me to act like a real nation, because real nations don't try to win a game. I would rather just have the AI act like a player would in a similar situation. If I see the AI building up an army on the border, then I'm definitely not going to be happy and will take the proper action :nuke::goodjob:


Krikkitone said:
I do like this but I want there to actually be a diplomacy game that can be played.
Click to expand...

There is. Basically the diplomacy game is don't be a dick to other civs. Don't settle aggressively near other civs or they'll get mad. Don't build up a large army on the border to another civ or they'll get mad. Don't tell the other civs "Oh that army? That's nothing don't worry about it." and then attack them 2 turns later or the world won't trust you. Make diplomacy about give and take, instead of just take.

This hopefully will make surprise attacks more about hiding troops and moving them quickly into enemy territory than just having a huge army 1 tile outside their territory for 10 turns with no consequence, then sniping the capital because you were so smart and caught them unaware :rolleyes:.
 
what i really really want, is to have options to say stuff, like stop moving your troops near my territory stop settling near my culture. Or other such stuff they can say to you and get you into trouble with people.

similarily, a civ who declares war on to me and i beat down is as friendly as hell with me after i kick him in the rear, but if i declared war they get all angry, why cant i be angry why cant i force them to pay more for techs and resources than i would normally, they still treat me as if were are on mates rates.
 
I just found out Shafer is 24 years old. I'm 26. God my life sucks.
 
Riot_Starter said:
I'm not a big fan of things that force me to act like a real nation, because real nations don't try to win a game. I would rather just have the AI act like a player would in a similar situation. If I see the AI building up an army on the border, then I'm definitely not going to be happy and will take the proper action :nuke::goodjob:
Click to expand...

It shouldn't 'force' you it should give you a benefit. For example, Certain government civics in Civ 4 give you a bonus to running specialists, or having cottages, or declaring war... does that mean they are Forcing you to do that?.. No, they are just encouraging you to do so.

If attacking your 1000 year ally makes your people unhappy, and attacking your 1000 year enemy makes them happy... then 'ally' and 'enemy' actually mean something, even at the end of the game.

Otherwise all civs are just... varying degrees of a serious competition with me.

They should be that but Much more.

Riot_Starter said:
There is. Basically the diplomacy game is don't be a dick to other civs. Don't settle aggressively near other civs or they'll get mad. Don't build up a large army on the border to another civ or they'll get mad. Don't tell the other civs "Oh that army? That's nothing don't worry about it." and then attack them 2 turns later or the world won't trust you. Make diplomacy about give and take, instead of just take.
Click to expand...
So basically don't try to win the game or they'll get mad... especially since that's what a real player would do...Real players are trying to Win the game
 
Krikkitone said:
It shouldn't 'force' you it should give you a benefit. For example, Certain government civics in Civ 4 give you a bonus to running specialists, or having cottages, or declaring war... does that mean they are Forcing you to do that?.. No, they are just encouraging you to do so.

If attacking your 1000 year ally makes your people unhappy, and attacking your 1000 year enemy makes them happy... then 'ally' and 'enemy' actually mean something, even at the end of the game.

Otherwise all civs are just... varying degrees of a serious competition with me.

They should be that but Much more.


So basically don't try to win the game or they'll get mad... especially since that's what a real player would do...Real players are trying to Win the game
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this Krikkitone. If you suffered happiness penalties for burning your long time allies, or gained happiness bonuses for helping an old friend in his/her hour of need, then this is a way to *encourage* certain behaviour without *forcing* it down the person's throat!

Aussie.
 
I really like the explanations Shafer gives about the diplomacy part. I never liked the numbers game of Civ IV or the Paradox titles, it just felt too artificial to me. Only the AI was affected by the numbers, I couldn't care less which religion other people had.

Of course it is very hard to make the system Shafer describes really work and not just annoy people becaus of its irrationality. The numbers game might be artificial but it worked. Still looking forward to the Diplomacy System though. If they can pull it off it will be awesome!
 
Necro'd.
I just listened to all 3 Civ5 podcasts, and...it sounds very much like Firaxis shill. They all declare their undying love for Civ5, claiming it is the best there ever was.

At least it's not nearly as bad as their XCom podcast, when instead of discussing the game they invited the lead designer\marketer and kissed his ass for an hour.
 
You necro'd a 4 year old thread to post your opinion about 4 year old podcasts?

Moderator Action: Thread closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_J
Can you make an anti-imperial empire game? The 4Xperts behind Civilization, Syphilisation and Victoria 3 discuss eXperimental 4X design
Replies
5
Views
2K
martindo
M
mastrude
Civ V Calculator Nerds
Replies
0
Views
343
mastrude
mastrude
The_J
TheCivShow podcast with Andrew Johnson
Replies
3
Views
1K
MoySauce
MoySauce
Rhye
Happy 2024
Replies
5
Views
1K
V. Soma
V
M
Maya UI Request
Replies
4
Views
686
ma_kuh
M
Top Bottom