Just made the jump to Civ 5: Impressions

Truth be told, all iterations of Civ suffered from the same "narrowing" syndrome vis a vis increasing difficulty... don't tell me you don't remember bee lining for Aesthetics because the AI never researched it, just in order to trade it to the "superb" AI??? Ha!

We agree though, that a better AI is a must... yes yes, the Social Network blablabla, but Civ has and should always be a SP game first.

By the way, did anyone take a look at Amplitude's Endless Legend solution to 1UPT --> MUPT --> 1UPT for combat and how to deal with cities/terrain? EXACTLY what I was hoping for Civ6... Firaxites, it's not even necessary to re-invent the wheel anymore! Just be able to reckon a good implementation, and improve on it! For G's sake!

Acken said:

I can't agree with that or I can't see it as an issue if we're talking about truly nonsensical options. If your purpose is to get the most optimal times then yes you're limited but there is no problem in playing how you feel like, and if it's too hard to play like this just slide the difficulty down if playing for fun is more important than playing right.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously. In any game you have more flexibility against weak opposition. A chess grandmaster could play any nonsense opening against a D grade club player and win. Against another grandmaster he will play only lines that he believes are the best, with perhaps his own innovation at move 32. Complaining about this is complaining about reality.

Which is exactly my point.

qemist said:

Well, obviously. In any game you have more flexibility against weak opposition. A chess grandmaster could play any nonsense opening against a D grade club player and win. Against another grandmaster he will play only lines that he believes are the best, with perhaps his own innovation at move 32. Complaining about this is complaining about reality.

Click to expand...

The point IMO is : is it still interesting to play with low difficulty ? I guess it's not in Chess, but Civ is not Chess.

To make short I will take my own example : I don't play Prince anymore because Happiness is too limiting compared to what I could actually do. Wars, expansion are forbidden. So I watched LPs that showed me how to play. Now I just build a handful of cities and grow them to death. Still have problems with happiness (i really wonder how those players do without apparently carrying too much about it, even skipping happiness buildings), but at least it's the optimum way to play with minimal effort.

I have no problem in playing on lowest DLs, but in Prince I can't do anything ! I have a massive army, I can steamroll the AI whenever I want, but I can't do wars like i could do them. I have massive free land around me, same thing. I JUST CAN'T MOVE. It's what makes the game terribly frustrating. Global Happiness is a massive fail.

Not saying the different games unfold in the same way. There is not enough different factors that could make you feel you are recreating a particular part of History. The fact that you can start near Aztecs if you pick France is really damaging. Again, it's like a little reality show, not a grand history fresco. Playing continent is boring as well due to 1UPT and GH (so I never do). Plus, the map generator is too specialized. You can't pick continents and have 5 or 6 of them like in Earth, not talking about their original, surprised and whereas reality-feeling positions.

Not talking about too small maps (or too boring big ones, because after all all this space is useless), and this promiscuity feeling (you settled too close to me, i will declare you!), not to mention this awful anachronic globalization state, where everybody knows instantly what you did provided you have "discovered" them, and nasty chain denouncings that shouldn't sound right or usefull before mass media.

That's why i'm saying the only point of Civ5 is challenge.

Acken said:

if playing for fun is more important than playing right.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't qualify highest difficulty playings like "right playings". The notion of "rightness" here is universal and unopposed, hm hm, it rings a bell. No, it's not about playing right.

Naokaukodem said:

To make short I will take my own example : I don't play Prince anymore because Happiness is too limiting compared to what I could actually do.

Click to expand...

So, are you now playing at Chieftan or King? But either way, don’t you feel like you should figure out the happiness mechanic before changing the difficulty level?

beetle said:

So, are you now playing at Chieftan or King? But either way, don’t you feel like you should figure out the happiness mechanic before changing the difficulty level?

Click to expand...

I've figured out the happiness mechanic, that's not the problem. The problem is knowing what you can do with it. Before watching Deity LPs, I didn't know i could build 6-7 cities and growing them at max while still having a positive happiness. Now that I know it's possible, I can try to mimic it.

The problem is that the happiness system looks so much irrational. Scarce resources, nerfed happiness buildings, nerfed resources, expensive CS alliances, difficult lux trades with AIs (they can have 1 billion lux of the same type but not a single left for you...), etc... there are so many sources that you HAVE TO consider always, that you can't keep a rational count of them all every time.

In lower difficulty levels, you can be ok with 2 cities, dominating the whole world because the AIs are terrible. But if you didn't managed to reach a level of playing like I described above, you will be bound hand and foot. I don't have enough happiness ? All right, after all I'm on Prince... I'm dominating the world ? So why can't I conquer them all or even expand a few times to make the pleasure last ? (or simply because i'm bored with unit management with 1UPT)

To have an open Prince experience, you have to play like in Deity basically.

Naokaukodem said:

To make short I will take my own example : I don't play Prince anymore because Happiness is too limiting compared to what I could actually do. Wars, expansion are forbidden.

Click to expand...

False. They may not be the best playstyle but they are certainly not forbidden.

So I watched LPs that showed me how to play. Now I just build a handful of cities and grow them to death. Still have problems with happiness (i really wonder how those players do without apparently carrying too much about it, even skipping happiness buildings), but at least it's the optimum way to play with minimal effort.

Click to expand...

That's only necessary in higher levels. Like I already said, if your purpose is to play as you like rather than what is best at deity, just don't play at high difficulty level.

I have no problem in playing on lowest DLs, but in Prince I can't do anything ! I have a massive army, I can steamroll the AI whenever I want, but I can't do wars like i could do them. I have massive free land around me, same thing. I JUST CAN'T MOVE. It's what makes the game terribly frustrating. Global Happiness is a massive fail.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Happiness is a limitation mechanic, true, but it is not insuperable.

Not saying the different games unfold in the same way. There is not enough different factors that could make you feel you are recreating a particular part of History. The fact that you can start near Aztecs if you pick France is really damaging. Again, it's like a little reality show, not a grand history fresco. Playing continent is boring as well due to 1UPT and GH (so I never do). Plus, the map generator is too specialized. You can't pick continents and have 5 or 6 of them like in Earth, not talking about their original, surprised and whereas reality-feeling positions.

Click to expand...

It's true that maps are not always how you'd like, but there is mods for that. There is a pletora of mods for earth like maps and even the right starting position. However, civ games have not been about simulating history. It's a game, with mostly arbitrary rules that have no realistic equivalent. History is only the theme in civ games, not the gameplay. That's why it was so easy to make a civ clone in space. Paradox games are trying a lot more to be historical simulations, civ games don't try.

Not talking about too small maps (or too boring big ones, because after all all this space is useless), and this promiscuity feeling (you settled too close to me, i will declare you!), not to mention this awful anachronic globalization state, where everybody knows instantly what you did provided you have "discovered" them, and nasty chain denouncings that shouldn't sound right or usefull before mass media.

Click to expand...

Don't eliminate too many and you will be fine. Also the last patch reduced warmonger penalties.

I wouldn't qualify highest difficulty playings like "right playings". The notion of "rightness" here is universal and unopposed, hm hm, it rings a bell. No, it's not about playing right.

Click to expand...

Replace "right" by "well" then.

The problem is that the happiness system looks so much irrational. Scarce resources, nerfed happiness buildings, nerfed resources, expensive CS alliances, difficult lux trades with AIs (they can have 1 billion lux of the same type but not a single left for you...), etc... there are so many sources that you HAVE TO consider always, that you can't keep a rational count of them all every time.

Click to expand...

All I get from this and the previous comments is that you think happiness is too hard to manage and you'd be happier without this limitation. There is a simple way to achieve that, just mod the game to remove happiness or to make it easier (more base happiness, more per lux etc).
However, limitations are required in strategy games. Happiness do the job but I'll grant you that it has pros and cons and that someone may prefer civ4 maintenance +local happiness system for example.

In lower difficulty levels, you can be ok with 2 cities, dominating the whole world because the AIs are terrible. But if you didn't managed to reach a level of playing like I described above, you will be bound hand and foot. I don't have enough happiness ? All right, after all I'm on Prince... I'm dominating the world ? So why can't I conquer them all or even expand a few times to make the pleasure last ? (or simply because i'm bored with unit management with 1UPT)

Click to expand...

You need to learn how to manage your happiness... I really don't see your problem. Sure it creates some restriction but saying you cannot expand or conquer, at all, because of it is simply false. I'll give to you that it requires some preparation to not be too badly in the red whereas in civ4 you could conquer without feeling too hard a hit on your economy, true.

To have an open Prince experience, you have to play like in Deity basically.

Click to expand...

Naokaukodem said:

The problem is that the happiness system looks so much irrational. Scarce resources, nerfed happiness buildings, nerfed resources, expensive CS alliances, difficult lux trades with AIs (they can have 1 billion lux of the same type but not a single left for you...), etc... there are so many sources that you HAVE TO consider always, that you can't keep a rational count of them all every time.

In lower difficulty levels, you can be ok with 2 cities, dominating the whole world because the AIs are terrible.

Click to expand...

That's the thing. The AIs are weak at all difficulty levels. Happiness is there to stop you from winning before you have wasted many hours of your life. Of course happiness makes no sense if you expect civ to model the real world. Founding a new city does not make everyone in a nation unhappy. Actually it often makes them happier because it provides more abundant opportunities. If there was no happiness mechanic the human would expand like crazy and crush the AIs like ants in under 3 hours.

The anti-war mechanics are for the same reason. The AI is much too weak to hold its own in a war against a good player on a level playing field. They gave it production bonuses but that is not enough unless they make the bonus so big that it is too obvious. So they have tried a few ways of punishing the player for making wars or winning wars.

Acken, not sure it's the way to go with your "false" and "wrong". It just shows that you didn't get the global picture of what i said. I'm not trying to make assumptions, just trying to say something new and, maybe, relevant. Your last smiley is eloquent.

qemist, that's pretty much my point. The difficutly does not come from other civilizations, it comes from internal management. It's not fun. Whereas you play Prince or Deity, it's the exact same problems. But when you play Prince, you don't have to expand too much, because AIs are terrible. But in the same time, if you dare to do it, you encounter a wall, because you didn't get the right experience, understanding or whatever it is needed in doing so. You have to play in an optimum way to have liberty on Prince, which you don't really need because the AIs are terrible regarless, but could use anyway to have well, I don't know... fun ?

I'm still answering this because, well... not much else to do.

Acken said:

False. They may not be the best playstyle but they are certainly not forbidden.

Click to expand...

When you have two cities and a happiness of -1, founding a new city without new resource or conquering a city alike, seems pretty much forbidden.

That's only necessary in higher levels. Like I already said, if your purpose is to play as you like rather than what is best at deity, just don't play at high difficulty level.

Click to expand...

The problem is precisely this one : you can't play as you like on Prince if you have no Deity level.

Wrong. Happiness is a limitation mechanic, true, but it is not insuperable.

Click to expand...

Ah well, so you know better than me how my games unfold ?

It's true that maps are not always how you'd like, but there is mods for that. There is a pletora of mods for earth like maps and even the right starting position. However, civ games have not been about simulating history. It's a game, with mostly arbitrary rules that have no realistic equivalent. History is only the theme in civ games, not the gameplay. That's why it was so easy to make a civ clone in space. Paradox games are trying a lot more to be historical simulations, civ games don't try.

Click to expand...

If civ games don't try it, why so have I already had this feeling with them ? Not in Civ4 or 5, because they are too gamey, again like a little reality show with caricatures, cool Montezuma looks crazy, Gandhi is a nuke lover, but appart from perorate it in forums, I really don't see the point.

Don't eliminate too many and you will be fine. Also the last patch reduced warmonger penalties.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about warmonger penalties, I'm talking about how the game engine of Civ5 and its principles are too straightjacketing, by opposition of epicness.

Replace "right" by "well" then.

Click to expand...

Might work.

All I get from this and the previous comments is that you think happiness is too hard to manage and you'd be happier without this limitation. There is a simple way to achieve that, just mod the game to remove happiness or to make it easier (more base happiness, more per lux etc).

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the base game, not some mod with no point.

You need to learn how to manage your happiness... I really don't see your problem. Sure it creates some restriction but saying you cannot expand or conquer, at all, because of it is simply false. I'll give to you that it requires some preparation to not be too badly in the red whereas in civ4 you could conquer without feeling too hard a hit on your economy, true.

Click to expand...

I'm learning it, don't worry.

Click to expand...

See post above.

Naokaukodem said:

Acken, not sure it's the way to go with your "false" and "wrong". It just shows that you didn't get the global picture of what i said. I'm not trying to make assumptions, just trying to say something new and, maybe, relevant. Your last smiley is eloquent.

Click to expand...

When a statement is wrong, calling it wrong or false is justified. The global picture of what you say seems to be based on false statements. I'll give you one thing that I think I get from what you say: you don't enjoy Civ5 because global happiness is too punitive for a player that don't really want to put some thoughts in it. Probably true.

Your last statement makes 0 sense, hence the smiley.

Y'all try this : on Prince, Time- and Diplo-VC's(OFF), and the Caravansary mod (by RYIKA), happiness should not be an issue .

Pick a target AI with several cities, and target your TRoutes in opposite direction; take Bozo's capital, and leave Bozo with ONLY his crappiest city (for future use as a trading Vassal), puppeting along the way; then declare peace with Bozo.

After resistance dies down, and looting accomplished, and annexing affordable, courthouses and happy buildings in conquered cities should keep the ball rolling; you've GOT the time to do it right .

As your TR's age out, Bozo(1)'s Crappycity gets the new TR's (trading Vassal), and you target a new AI (Bozo2) for your next war; rinse and repete !

Just out of curiosity, are those struggling for happiness aware that allying Mercantile CS are basically the best forms of early happiness in the game? Each Merc CS can be worth up to 11 happiness. "Straight jacket" in regard to happiness seems awfully strong to describe CiV on any levels below Immortal.

Sure, you'll need to scout for natural wonders, CS, and develop trading partners to sell strategic and lux copies, but if you really want to play wide and don't mind the science and growth hits, happiness isn't a straight jacket. You can't settle when and wherever you want, but you can do a lot, especially on Emperor and below.

Acken said:

When a statement is wrong, calling it wrong or false is justified. The global picture of what you say seems to be based on false statements. I'll give you one thing that I think I get from what you say: you don't enjoy Civ5 because global happiness is too punitive for a player that don't really want to put some thoughts in it. Probably true.

Click to expand...

Well those "statements" are based on experience, they are therefore indubitably true. Period. Now, I know perfectly it's not about the game only, I have my own word in it. I might not put enough "thought" on it, but that doesn't explain why i lack "thought" on this particular case, whereas, as you could note, I like to think. (even "wrongly" )

Maybe then I don't like to think ingame ? After all, games are here for relaxation. That might be a part of the problem.

Or maybe that the game is too hard or i have not the required IQ to figure out the right happiness flowing ? That may be along those lines.

But come on, not playing like I want in PRINCE, just because of happiness ? In Prince, whatever you do you dominate the AI. Happiness is really the only thing that prevents me to play as I intend.

Your last statement makes 0 sense, hence the smiley.

Click to expand...

My last "statement" makes perfect sense. It's a kind of conclusion to what have been said previously. Maybe you don't know how to read between lines, or maybe what i said was not precise enough, it was just thought milestones for myself in the first place, maybe not so for others. But I think that I've precised my thought answering to qemist, and to you also, so you are not forgivable in that regard I believe.

Nick31 said:

"Straight jacket" in regard to happiness seems awfully strong to describe CiV on any levels below Immortal.

Click to expand...

"Straight jacket" describe not only happiness, but a general feeling on the Civ5 playing. Plus, must I say you that happiness on Immortal is the same than in Prince ?

happiness isn't a straight jacket. You can't settle when and wherever you want, but you can do a lot, especially on Emperor and below.

Click to expand...

Emperor and below (until Prince) have the same (un)happiness than in Deity.

I find this very odd, because I regularly play on either King or Prince (Prince if I want an easier, more relaxing game, King if I want more of a challenge) and rarely have issues expanding or maintaining happiness. I've said before, I've found Civ IV's mechanics far more punitive on expansion than Civ V's.

Maybe I'll have to start up another game and keep an eye on just how I moderate my happiness levels. I suspect I tend to be fairly aggressive about obtaining luxuries (either through settlement or trade), as well as getting happiness from religion, and helping top that up with Colosseums when necessary. My problems always seem to revolve more around failing to maintain an adequate military, if anything.

Naokaukodem said:

My last "statement" makes perfect sense. It's a kind of conclusion to what have been said previously. Maybe you don't know how to read between lines, or maybe what i said was not precise enough, it was just thought milestones for myself in the first place, maybe not so for others. But I think that I've precised my thought answering to qemist, and to you also, so you are not forgivable in that regard I believe.

Click to expand...

Yeah sorry about that. It's a conclusion that makes perfect sense based on an argumentation that makes none (that prince and deity are played the same in regard to happiness) for people who actually play at both levels regularly.

It's true that the rules are the same but the difficulty of obtaining stuff is just far far different making happiness easy on Prince. It's not so easy that you can ignore it, true. But you can basically ICS or conquer at your will on this difficulty. But for some reason you argue that you want to do it while ignoring the mechanic instead of looking for options allowing you to achieve your strategy. When you decide to ignore a mechanic, mods are there.

Or like this person testimony:

bouncymischa said:

I find this very odd, because I regularly play on either King or Prince (Prince if I want an easier, more relaxing game, King if I want more of a challenge) and rarely have issues expanding or maintaining happiness. I've said before, I've found Civ IV's mechanics far more punitive on expansion than Civ V's.

Maybe I'll have to start up another game and keep an eye on just how I moderate my happiness levels. I suspect I tend to be fairly aggressive about obtaining luxuries (either through settlement or trade), as well as getting happiness from religion, and helping top that up with Colosseums when necessary. My problems always seem to revolve more around failing to maintain an adequate military, if anything.

Click to expand...

My first game was on prince, and I didn't know anything about civ or the whole series, and I still flattened the AI, while expanding. It never seemed to be a problem that was not solvable. The part about obtaining luxuries is is always a core part of the game for me, not just for the happiness but for the fact that I can trade it away for money or get a lux for a quest. If you want a game to be truly like a sandbox game then maybe the happiness mechanic is an issue, but as a strategy game you need to think of it as a handicap because the AI is not competent in terms of play.

Out of curiosity, what are you trying to achieve on prince that is limited by happiness? There are so many ways to get happiness that you might not have considered or thought too costly.

Also I do understand the point that some people believe games should be relaxing and not require you to have a ton of finesse, but strategy games cannot be strategy games if you don't have to think and plan inside the game.

Naokaukodem said:

Emperor and below (until Prince) have the same (un)happiness than in Deity.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting observation, which I first had to double check difficulties to confirm that this statement is true on its face.

I do struggle with happiness when I play wide at Immortal, but the space limitations and land competition with AIs is really why I stop founding at about 8 cities. When I played at lower difficulty levels, I hardly paid attention to happiness. So what is the difference?

A good rule of thumb is that you need a new lux for each new city. At lower levels, it is much easier to brute force conqueror the spots you need.

One of the main benefits of religion is the happiness buildings and belief. At lower levels, it is much easier to found early and get your choice. If you know you want to play wide, picking up 2x +2 is an obvious choice.

At lower level of play you can pick up Wonders that are not feasible at higher difficulties. The most relevant example is Notre Dame for +10.

So, in conclusion, it is disingenuous to assert that (since neither provides the player bonuses) empire building in Prince is like it is with Deity.

beetle said:

A good rule of thumb is that you need a new lux for each new city. At lower levels, it is much easier to brute force conqueror the spots you need.

Click to expand...

Yep, I figured that out. I said somewhere (in the recipe for Deity topic) that you must absolutely find new resources for your new cities. The +4 happiness doesn't seem so fantastic but in fine, it's the way to go.

But as I see happiness, it's good on Prince too.

One of the main benefits of religion is the happiness buildings and belief. At lower levels, it is much easier to found early and get your choice. If you know you want to play wide, picking up 2x +2 is an obvious choice.

At lower level of play you can pick up Wonders that are not feasible at higher difficulties. The most relevant example is Notre Dame for +10.

Click to expand...

I knew what wanted to say Acken was along those lines... although, in Deity you just have to let youself religious conquer to give you those happiness buildings, and the wonders you can still try to build them (never could in Immortal for my part) or conquer them like i saw in a number of LPs.

So it's not really the end of the world. The fact that you have only 9 happy faces at start and each new city cost 4 happy faces is much more significant.

Because I could argue on my turn that on Prince AIs improve their resources much later than on Deity, so you have less opportunities and later ones to trade lux with them. On the same note, in Deity you have less space to expand because AIs settle a lot more quickly, so you are tempted to settle less cities, and for conquest wars they last longer and take more time to prepare so you are not in urge need of happiness.

To say it's a little fetched. Happiness is the same in Prince than in Deity. Isn't it ?

Yes, it’s a little far fetched to say that happiness is the same in Prince as compared to Deity.

Naokaukodem said:

in Deity you just have to let youself religious conquer convert to give you those happiness buildings

Click to expand...

That is not the least bit reliable, but borrowing a religion to pick up extra faith buildings is available at Prince (just less valuable, since you already have picked the best ones). On Prince, getting an early religion is perfectly reliable.

and the wonders you can still try to build them (never could in Immortal for my part)

Click to expand...

Right, easy on Prince. Very difficulty on Immortal+.

or conquer them like i saw in a number of LPs

Click to expand...

Again, not easy nor reliable at higher difficulty levels. It is only the super players that have no trouble with Deity domination. My assertion is that your more typically average players can manage happiness at higher levels, and that happiness is easier to manage at lower difficulty levels.

Because I could argue on my turn that on Prince AIs improve their resources much later than on Deity, so you have less opportunities and later ones to trade lux with them.

Click to expand...

There is something too that. Prince AIs have less gold for trades and are worse partners for RA. But none of that makes up for the players relative advantages.

in Deity you have less space to expand because AIs settle a lot more quickly, so you are tempted to settle less cities, and for conquest wars they last longer and take more time to prepare so you are not in urge need of happiness.

Click to expand...

True enough, but again these limits hardly make the game easier. As a Prince player, you are not the least bit compelled to settle badly. Take all the land you want -- just have 5-7 hexes between cities, and be picky about where you settle. So, yes, you have to be a little disciplined because there is more land to grab. Happiness should be very manageable without any help from the AI.