stealth_nsk
Deity
Oops, sorry. My mistake.
I am really bummed about the lack of relationship modifiers information
- Thread starter VitalyB
- Start date
Oops, sorry. My mistake.
Ahriman does understand it perfectly.
Of course modifiers are not the ideal realism. But it is more realistic than what you other guys are claiming for realism's sake.
Staying in the "don't build near my borders" example:
In real life you could talk to them, ask for details. "Is it ok to settle here?", "What about here?", "hey you settled there, it's pretty close but well... ok", "hey you settled here, I hate you"
With modifiers we would settle and get a -1, if its almost ok or a -5 if it was terrible or nothing if it was enough tiles away. With the system you like to call real, we just know they don't want us to settle near and.... what the hell does that mean. Did my city placement made them angry or not? In real life we would know, with modifiers we would know, with your "realism system" we don't.
Of course modifiers are not the ideal realism. But it is more realistic than what you other guys are claiming for realism's sake.
Staying in the "don't build near my borders" example:
In real life you could talk to them, ask for details. "Is it ok to settle here?", "What about here?", "hey you settled there, it's pretty close but well... ok", "hey you settled here, I hate you"
With modifiers we would settle and get a -1, if its almost ok or a -5 if it was terrible or nothing if it was enough tiles away. With the system you like to call real, we just know they don't want us to settle near and.... what the hell does that mean. Did my city placement made them angry or not? In real life we would know, with modifiers we would know, with your "realism system" we don't.
stealth_nsk
Deity
How you see this? If another leader asks you to not settle near his borders, what comes BEFORE you actually settled, right? So there are no modifiers yet.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think the most important mistake is what people still think in Civ 4 terms of love/hate. Rationalism takes each case individually and here hiding individual modifiers is good thing. See examples:
1. You gather forces near someone borders. You want a system which just tell you if your target already aware of your plan or not? Not fun. Figure it out yourself from opponent unit moves as he/she does the same.
2. Your city is weakly defended and considered an easy target for your opponent. The system which just inform you about isn't fun. Prepare and watch out or get a sneak attack.
3. You betrayed an AI in the past by breaking trade treaty. You could see this in deal history, and you could say what AI will trust you less. But knowing if the AI will break your next treaty isn't fun. You should consider the risk.
etc.
1. You gather forces near someone borders. You want a system which just tell you if your target already aware of your plan or not? Not fun. Figure it out yourself from opponent unit moves as he/she does the same.
2. Your city is weakly defended and considered an easy target for your opponent. The system which just inform you about isn't fun. Prepare and watch out or get a sneak attack.
3. You betrayed an AI in the past by breaking trade treaty. You could see this in deal history, and you could say what AI will trust you less. But knowing if the AI will break your next treaty isn't fun. You should consider the risk.
etc.
Yes, you see it after. With mods you see the impact it had, like in real life he would tell you you pissed him off. Or he could tell you, yes, thats far enough its ok.
With just the warning you get now you have no idea wwhat's going on. That's why I call it "too random".
I liked having insight into the leaders attitudes. There is nothing wrong with a game giving you information on what is important and what is not. Things that would be discoverable in the real world.
I will miss that insight if it's gone. But I have to see the final game to know for sure.
I will miss that insight if it's gone. But I have to see the final game to know for sure.
That's not the mods we are asking for. In civ4 you could not see that in the mods, aswell as you couldn't prepare for a backstab or a bribe from another nation.
Same as #1
Mods shouldn't tell intentions. They just tell how much he likes you. And how much he likes you is one of the variables of an AI's many ecuations on what to do.
If you break a traty, with mods, you could see he likes you less. Without mods you can guess it pretty well. It's just a clear example of hate where you can guess it very accurately. Mods would be ok, but you just know it anyway.
stealth_nsk
Deity
AFAIK, there's no such thing as "level of discomfort" from settling close, like -1 for afar, -4 for too close, etc. You either too close and get a warning or not.
Moreover, since there are no unified love/hate, the actual settling doesn't change any modifiers. It just may alter future decisions.
stealth_nsk
Deity
NO! You can't see if the leader like you less, because the leader don't like you less!
All I want to say in the third post already what there are no more general like/hate modifiers as I understand the current system.
stealth_nsk
Deity
If you look at individual Civ 5 features by considering them in Civ 4 gameplay, most of the features will look unpleasant.
We've seen some bits of diplomatic info, from which I'm making my assumptions. They are not necessary true, but look very logical for me. Hope we'll know soon.
I agree with everyone who has brought up the fact that city states are really meant to become the 'permanent allies' or vassals of Civ 5. The way things worked in Civ IV was just too swingy... at times in favor of the player and at times against us. I'm sure everyone here can recall games where a 10 civ game turned into 1 on 1... you and your vassals and religious allies vs him and his vassals and religious allies. Those games basically evolved (or devolved) from a horse race where everyone is trying to get ahead into 'reds vs. blues' or as I sometimes felt- AIs vs You.
It seems the current design is to attempt to maintain more of that horse race flavor with the implementation of city states that replace other civs as permanent allies. Some people might like this design implementation less than Reds vs Blues, which is totally legitimate.
Personally I think I will like the new design, as long as the AI truly is trying to win in its own right, rather than just prevent the player from winning. Thats the part that has me a little concerned, especially after watching the live stream gameplay. If each AI truly was trying to win, you would think that Greg's Japan could have found plenty of civ allies who were just as concerned as he was about Napoleon, and formed a large alliance to bring him down to everyone else's level.
Personally, I think that's a long shot. The AI is probably a lot more biased against the player still, even if it has gotten a huge decision-making upgrade this time around, which it sounds like it has. But I can still hold onto hopes and dreams of a truly wide open playing field for another week at least
It seems the current design is to attempt to maintain more of that horse race flavor with the implementation of city states that replace other civs as permanent allies. Some people might like this design implementation less than Reds vs Blues, which is totally legitimate.
Personally I think I will like the new design, as long as the AI truly is trying to win in its own right, rather than just prevent the player from winning. Thats the part that has me a little concerned, especially after watching the live stream gameplay. If each AI truly was trying to win, you would think that Greg's Japan could have found plenty of civ allies who were just as concerned as he was about Napoleon, and formed a large alliance to bring him down to everyone else's level.
Personally, I think that's a long shot. The AI is probably a lot more biased against the player still, even if it has gotten a huge decision-making upgrade this time around, which it sounds like it has. But I can still hold onto hopes and dreams of a truly wide open playing field for another week at least
Did Civ or Civ2 have these? How did you play before the game turned into an excel excercise?
Like mentioned before, it's not about the numbers, it's about whether relations means something. In Civ4 they did, and that was possibly the main reason why it was so superior to its predecessors. In Civ5, they apparently don't (if you can't see the relations, it's almost the same thing as they didn't exists at all - and maybe the don't). This is a step backward to Civ3 era, and it's hard to understand what is the reason for this downgrading.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Like mentioned before, it's not about the numbers, it's about whether relations means something. In Civ4 they did, and that was possibly the main reason why it was so superior to its predecessors. In Civ5, they apparently don't (if you can't see the relations, it's almost the same thing as they didn't exists at all - and maybe the don't). This is a step backward to Civ3 era, and it's hard to understand what is the reason for this downgrading.
Civ 1-3 have 0 relation numbers.
Civ 4 have 1 relation number.
Civ 5 have multiple relation numbers.
That's step forward.
alpaca
King of Ungulates
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,322
Like mentioned before, it's not about the numbers, it's about whether relations means something. In Civ4 they did, and that was possibly the main reason why it was so superior to its predecessors. In Civ5, they apparently don't (if you can't see the relations, it's almost the same thing as they didn't exists at all - and maybe the don't). This is a step backward to Civ3 era, and it's hard to understand what is the reason for this downgrading.
Watch the Japan game in the live stream. Greg had good relations with Elizabeth and some other civs, he knew it, they knew it. One (Catherine iirc) even asked him for money because they were so good friends. Then make that argument again.
Do you really need your friends to tell you all the time that they like you? Is it not enough they ask you to have fun with them? (No personal attack intended)
He had a cooperation pact with all of them. If you want to reduce all to having a pact or not, well yes, then it's easy to know
In your opinion. The way I see it, this whole issue boils down to 2 camps:
- Those who favour an historical simulator.
- Those who favour a tough strategy game.
I disagree. Like I said in several posts above yours, having modifiers makes it not only more strategic, but also more real, than just not beeing able to see how a leader felt about an action.
I don't know whether it makes it more or less strategic but what you can't deny is that it makes it easier. Arguing in favour of making the game easier in order to promote "realism" puts you squarely in the first camp.
You simply cannot have a tough strategy game if the human player is given unfair advantages over the AI players.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
Yea because No one can tell the Nappy doesn't like you when he glares at you.
Look in the stream did he really look friendly to you? Also you should be able to realize that certain things will anger the AI and others will please them. After all we did survive civs I-III didn't we?
Look in the stream did he really look friendly to you? Also you should be able to realize that certain things will anger the AI and others will please them. After all we did survive civs I-III didn't we?
Similar threads
