Civ5- A Whole New Civ

I'm not arguing for a phantom, I'm arguing for easier top difficulty levels, that do not need reverse-engineering.

I'd find this easier to believe if you could explain "reverse-engineering" as anything more than "the things I don't like".

Well, if it allows you to build more dominant units with a slight tech advance, I would understand you, as your style of play is teching > attack.

No, it's not.

It's that tech done well beats attack. Culture done well beats attack. Economy done well beats attack.

This does not mean that attack done well can't beat culture, tech, or whatever.

It means that military strength should not automatically win; it means that different styles should be well balanced so that to win by any play style is possible but is never inevitable, and the difference there is being bothered to actually play the game well. Which means understanding how it works.
 
I'd find this easier to believe if you could explain "reverse-engineering" as anything more than "the things I don't like".

I explained myself about this multiple times in those forums, and particularly in this thread. Saying i mean reverse engineering as "the things I don't like" prooves clearly that you did not followed at all what I said, and don't care much.

First remove the "" from reverge-engineering and you will see it speaks for itself... but i do not wait that much from you.

No, it's not.

It's that tech done well beats attack. Culture done well beats attack. Economy done well beats attack.

This does not mean that attack done well can't beat culture, tech, or whatever.

It means that military strength should not automatically win; it means that different styles should be well balanced so that to win by any play style is possible but is never inevitable, and the difference there is being bothered to actually play the game well. Which means understanding how it works.

Actually that's you style of play and you do not succeed in it as you see the problem as "prevalent wars", which is not.

Because if not, you would say "i love culture win in Civ4", "I love teching until space race, UNO", what you seem to be stranger from. Instead, you get attacked by the AI and lose. Or wage those wars you dislike so much but being your better skill, and win by war that you dislike so much! :lol: That's pretty funny in fact, poor poor rysmiel. :(
 
First remove the "" from reverge-engineering and you will see it speaks for itself...

Why do you keep assuming that what you say is obvious when people are asking for an explanation ?

Because if not, you would say "i love culture win in Civ4", "I love teching until space race, UNO", what you seem to be stranger from.

I would have thought it was tolerably obvious that I love precious little about Civ 4, as I am, as I have said repeatedly, predominantly a Civ 3 player (though actually this last couple of weeks, I have been playing Civ 2). Which fwIw i usually win by spaceship, often win by culture, and pretty much always get to a position that would win by dominance (if I had dominance switched on) as part of getting to a spaceship or culture victory; have won by conquest a few times but it's boring.

I'm reasonably good at fighting wars, I just find it a less interesting part of the game; therefore when I have to do it I do it quickly and efficiently and with minimum diversion from what i do enjoy.
 
Why do you keep assuming that what you say is obvious when people are asking for an explanation ?

OK, I will go for it again especially for you. :)

Reverse-engineering is lurking into the code of a game, of a program, in order to acquire a cognizance of it, in order to achieve different goals, like creating a new game based on the first.

What i'm saying is that it is impossible to know, for example, certain AI preferencies correctly and with accuracy if we do not reverse-engine the game. That's what I call being uninstinctive.

You could as well go in this very forum in order to acquire some understanding of the game mechanics without to reverse-engine it yourself, other people doing it for you.

In both cases, I do not like the approach. I think everything should be in the game.

And about AI preferencies, that's another story. That makes the game easier for those who know how to EXPLOIT those preferencies, when the AI should stubborn itself to adapt and only adapt to the current game, without any "pacific pattern" or "real civ simulator" pattern, making the AI to the mercy of the player. (AI civs should be programmed to WIN anytime, not figurating and waiting like sick cows that they all are! :p )

And that alone would imply less overwhelming bonus for higher difficulty levels AIs.

I'm reasonably good at fighting wars, I just find it a less interesting part of the game; therefore when I have to do it I do it quickly and efficiently and with minimum diversion from what i do enjoy.

That's to say with a tech advantage, mostly ;)
 
What i'm saying is that it is impossible to know, for example, certain AI preferencies correctly and with accuracy if we do not reverse-engineer the game. That's what I call being uninstinctive.

And this, I think, is the point where I disagree; learning AI strategic preferences and personalities from playing the game repeatedly and observing them seems both fun to me and not to need the player to actually fiddle with the code at all.
 
Then why some players out there are lurking the code of the game? It is not rare that we see a topic on "the real thing behind X thing", with code references all along.

Maybe you could see the AI personnalities without R-E, but that would need preemptively some R-E anyway, as I have absolutelly no guess of where to look for to guess AI personnalities. On which grounds AI personnalities express themselves? I think it needs some R-E at the start, at least. Maybe you just read an article on those, and did the rest by yourself. AI personnalities? Where? In attacking more often? I don't see the need of R-E in that, true. But there are out there more complicated and subtile things about them, and, about many other aspect of the game.
 
Then why some players out there are lurking the code of the game?
they find it fun. please move your discussion with rysmiel to PM as it has nothing to with "Civ5- A Whole New Civ". thank you!
 
they find it fun. please move your discussion with rysmiel to PM as it has nothing to with "Civ5- A Whole New Civ". thank you!

Hail, still unpleasant. Don't you like me? Maybe you think I am arrogant, and looking at my avatar reinforce you in your attitude. My avatar is Marlon Brando, probably you do not know him but I like him a lot! :D Please stop being so unpleasant.

The more where your arguments are zero. They find it fun hey? That's all? I wonder why so many players, that do not know nothing about code and are not interested by itself, are very interested and discuss about those reverse-engineerings... Well, that's not like they woulnd't use the reverse-engineering for play purpose! :lol:

And no, this discussion is not off-topic. Re-Read the OP, it is about to improove Civ or make it a-new, and opinions and views will invariably differ from a person to another. So it is legitimate to discuss and debate them.

In brief, you are there only to hatred pouring against something one would have some difficulty to see. Maybe some reverse-engineering would be usefull in order to see more clear in you. :p
 
And this, I think, is the point where I disagree; learning AI strategic preferences and personalities from playing the game repeatedly and observing them seems both fun to me and not to need the player to actually fiddle with the code at all.
agreed!
 
To me, that looks like a rather childish animation and explosion. I prefer the tank in Civ 4, for example. But enough quibbling about graphics. Let's agree to disagree.

Let it be known that I hate you so very very much.
 
To me, that looks like a rather childish animation and explosion. I prefer the tank in Civ 4, for example. But enough quibbling about graphics. Let's agree to disagree.
For one thing: It's not a tank.
For another: You have bad taste. (and sight possibly)
And last: Don't mess with Wyrmshadow, he makes great units, but it's not a good idea to get in his way.

Back to subjekt...
I would have thought it was tolerably obvious that I love precious little about Civ 4, as I am, as I have said repeatedly, predominantly a Civ 3 player (though actually this last couple of weeks, I have been playing Civ 2). Which fwIw i usually win by spaceship, often win by culture, and pretty much always get to a position that would win by dominance (if I had dominance switched on) as part of getting to a spaceship or culture victory; have won by conquest a few times but it's boring.
Can't say I agree with you anymore, I would be repeating myself. I'm working on conversions to make the cost of tanks accurate in my WWII mod for Civ3, so I'm kinda busy. But as far as regular unmodded games, I usually run out of time before I win.

I'm reasonably good at fighting wars, I just find it a less interesting part of the game; therefore when I have to do it I do it quickly and efficiently and with minimum diversion from what i do enjoy.
I'm excellent at fighting wars, so I try to avoid them. When I do find myself in one, I try to mix it up a bit and do different styles on different fronts.
 
Then why some players out there are lurking the code of the game? It is not rare that we see a topic on "the real thing behind X thing", with code references all along.

I can't speak for the motivation of people who do that; I am not one of them.

Maybe you could see the AI personnalities without R-E, but that would need preemptively some R-E anyway, as I have absolutelly no guess of where to look for to guess AI personnalities.

That one's trivial; play against them a few times and see what patterns energe in theiir behaviour.

AI personnalities? Where? In attacking more often? I don't see the need of R-E in that, true. But there are out there more complicated and subtile things about them, and, about many other aspect of the game.

In military strategy, in diplomacy, in every other aspect of the game where variety is possible.
 
they find it fun. please move your discussion with rysmiel to PM as it has nothing to with "Civ5- A Whole New Civ". thank you!

I think it does; I am expressing a very strong aspiration for more distinct AI personalities and stratgies to replace UUs and UBs and "traits", which seems to me a pretty fundamental shift in how Civ would work.
 
That one's trivial; play against them a few times and see what patterns energe in theiir behaviour.
:clap: Thank you captain obvious!
I think it does; I am expressing a very strong aspiration for more distinct AI personalities and stratgies to replace UUs and UBs and "traits", which seems to me a pretty fundamental shift in how Civ would work.
Yes, it does. This thread covers a very broad subjekt.
 
Let it be known that I hate you so very very much.

My apologies. :blush: No offence intended. I was meaning that Civ3 units in general are rather childish (for lack of a better word), although that particular design by you is good, for the childish (again, just a product of my limited vocabulary, not meant in a negative way, as such) base that you are endowed with to design it on and incorporate it with, being Civ3 units in general. :)

For one thing: It's not a tank.
For another: You have bad taste. (and sight possibly)
And last: Don't mess with Wyrmshadow, he makes great units, but it's not a good idea to get in his way.

What is it? A mech. inf. I assume?
Again, different strokes for different folks, and I didn't mean to mess with Wyrmshadow (whose good reputation precedes him), so much as point out what I viewed to be the standard of Civ3 unit animations in general. Sure, nice examples (although using modded units that are obviously of a higher standard as examples is kinda cheating), but I personally prefer Civ4 units.
 
I can't speak for the motivation of people who do that; I am not one of them.

Well that's pretty obvious.

That one's trivial; play against them a few times and see what patterns energe in their behaviour.

If you do not R-E, it may take a very, very long time. Even an infinite time.

In military strategy, in diplomacy, in every other aspect of the game where variety is possible.

I wouldn't push too much the variety thing, but yes, the Civ4 program is pretty big and ununderstandable...

R-E or not, it is very counter-natural to guess the AI illogical patterns.

For example, i read an article in Strategy and Tips forums, it says that if you demand something trivial to an AI (and this last one accepts it), it won't vassalize anymore your enemies. What a very logical, playable and wondefull thing it is!

That, is a good example of what I do not want to see in civ5: moronic bahavior absolutely stranger to the good sense.
 
What is it? A mech. inf. I assume?
Again, different strokes for different folks, and I didn't mean to mess with Wyrmshadow (whose good reputation precedes him), so much as point out what I viewed to be the standard of Civ3 unit animations in general. Sure, nice examples (although using modded units that are obviously of a higher standard as examples is kinda cheating), but I personally prefer Civ4 units.
Nope, Siege Mortar.
 

Attachments

  • Karl.jpg
    Karl.jpg
    28.5 KB · Views: 115
If you do not R-E, it may take a very, very long time. Even an infinite time.

I consider this all part of learning the game.

R-E or not, it is very counter-natural to guess the AI illogical patterns.

It's exactly the same process as getting to know other human beings.

That, is a good example of what I do not want to see in civ5: moronic bahavior absolutely stranger to the good sense.

Again, "good sense" is not the smae thing to the every Civ player, let alone every human being.
 
And actualy is not that hard to guess the AI personalities...
They play more or less accordingly.
 
Top Bottom