Civ5 at PAX

I'm with Aussie on this. Civ V is increasingly looking like its a wargame, designed by a lead designer with a wargamer background.

Trouble is, I don't want "Panzer General with social policies". I want a game with rich diplomacy, economic options and social policies. Not to mention Trade, which I believe has also been dumbed down. Or Health, is now part of happiness (Fast food anyone?).

And I expect those features out of the box, not in an expansion

I believe Civ is meant to be a broad brush of history, not a history of warfare

I agree.

I am totally excited about the 1upt, I think it will be much better than SoD. I also like the change to hexes, and Love! the city states.

But was it that hard to add this things without dumbing down everything else? Diplomacy worries me SO much.
 
Has any one noticed if they still have the: "what do you think of 'name'?" question in diplomacy talks? Is it just me or could you gauge how an ally percieves someone else by asking them. If so the information may not be laid out in a screen but have to be found out by actually asking them. If they're not talking to you it'd be even harder. Or it might be actually more realistic in that you don't really know what the AI is thinking.
Although a list of your current treaties and trades is a necessacity.

The PC Gamer UK Review mentioned a lack of diplomacy screen as well. They Should have been reviewing gold code. Maybe firaxis are rushing it in for day 0 patch.
 
There's no discount for rushing something you already put production into however.

What happened to the production you already put in then? was it lost, did it overflow.
 
Has any one noticed if they still have the: "what do you think of 'name'?" question in diplomacy talks? Is it just me or could you gauge how an ally percieves someone else by asking them. If so the information may not be laid out in a screen but have to be found out by actually asking them. If they're not talking to you it'd be even harder. Or it might be actually more realistic in that you don't really know what the AI is thinking.
Although a list of your current treaties and trades is a necessacity.

I had looked for that dialogue option specifically, but couldn't find it. There's a "Discuss" button though I don't remember what it does, just that I was disappointed with the options it gave me.

What happened to the production you already put in then? was it lost, did it overflow.

I don't know, I didn't have enough time to test it that in-depth.
 
Perhaps I am near sighted - or simply optimistic - but I honestly think that there is less emphasis on the military aspect of the game. By that I mean that the military aspect of the game has been made less powerful and less of a crutch. I do think that the military aspect of the game has been made more interesting, though.

Maybe it's a function of the level I play (Monarch, usually), but in Civ IV, you could use a strong military to leverage your way to any of the available victory conditions, because more cities meant more of everything else - more gold, more science, more production, more units, more votes in the UN. . . It was the classic snowball effect, and - because of the limitless stack mechanism - it was unstoppable: whether you were on offense or defense, the size of your stack was the biggest factor in any war.

The 1upH mechanic means that war will be more interesting - we will have to pay more attention to it - but it also means that other factors become much more relevant in determining who will win, such as: the size of the front, the terrain, how your units are deployed. . . and a host of other factors.

But, in the grander scope of the game, war has become less powerful. It cannot be leveraged into a diplomatic victory - and may actually make that victory condition unattainable. Global happiness means that there is a limit to how much you can benefit from conquered cities. Puppets allow some wiggle room, but do not add units or production capability to your empire.

More cities means that Social policies cost more, so that smaller empires might be better positioned to achieve a Culture Victory - and continuous conquest will increase those costs without really giving you the means to make up the difference - probably putting that VC out of reach as well.

Research pacts require long term friends, which will be harder to find for aggressive, warmongering civs, meaning that they may tech slower, making a Scientific Victory harder to achieve.

Continuous aggression may very well limit you to a Domination Victory. If that proves to be the case, then the military aspect of the game is less powerful.

Since conquered cities bring their acquired tiles with them - there is even a place for limited conquest (which became more and more difficult in Civ IV, the later in the game you went, because of overwhelming native culture).

Let me say that I 100% agree with this statement.

To take it a step farther, with clever social policies and deployment a small (effectively non-military) civilization has the possibility of stopping a large war machine in its tracks.

Look at the tradition tree: it's built exactly for allowing smaller civs to 1) gain a slight population advantage given their geographical size; 2) provide a substantial bonus to warding off aggressors.

Can you imagine playing a 4 or 5 city game with 7 land units and 5 navel units in civ4? It might be possible in ciV if you manage to secure a peninsula to yourself. Not exactly a warmonger setup.
 
Exactly. Also, even in the REAL WORLD, world leaders have FOREIGN ADVISORS to tell them what the state of Foreign Affairs currently is, & to keep the leader informed of recent developments. If the Foreign Advisor in Civ5 is incapable of doing even that small task, then we must surely question why they wasted the resources to put one in.

Aussie.

:agree:

The +3 and -8 modifiers felt too "gamey", but that doesn't mean we should get no information. It just shouldn't be quantified (IMO).
 
What happened to the production you already put in then? was it lost, did it overflow.

It doesn't work that way, there is no "rushing" of production anymore, instead you can straight up buy things.

For example if your working on a settler and find yourself needing to have warriors, you can click on the purchase buutton and buy a warrior for x gold. It won't affect what your currently producing. (edit - unless it was a building or wonder then i guess it would, and i also wonder what would happen the the hammers invested.)
 
It doesn't work that way, there is no "rushing" anymore, instead you can straight up buy things.

For example if your working on a settler and find yourself needing to have warriors, you can click on the purchase buutton and buy a warrior for x gold. It won't affect what your currently producing.

But what if I'm building a Temple (and have 10 hammers already invested) and then buy a Temple. Can I have 2 Temples in my city? or do those 10 hammers disappear or do they overflow to the next thing I build (since I can't build a Temple any more)
 
But what if I'm building a Temple (and have 10 hammers already invested) and then buy a Temple. Can I have 2 Temples in my city? or do those 10 hammers disappear or do they overflow to the next thing I build (since I can't build a Temple any more)

I believe the effort of the 10 hammers is wasted, so you need to plan accordingly. Also, if something costs 70 gold to build and 4 turns to build, you can't wait 2 turns of production and pay the difference (35 gold, in this example) - it's still 70 gold to purchase.

Not sure what would happen if you needed 50 hammers to build something and you were producing 11/turn what would happen on turn 5 with your extra 5 hammers - I assume THOSE are not lost, and would spill over into the next building project?
 
For example if your working on a settler and find yourself needing to have warriors, you can click on the purchase buutton and buy a warrior for x gold. It won't affect what your currently producing.

(Pulls up soap box. Clears throat.)

Let me say that I think this sucks. In fact, I've always thought it sucked to be able to buy yourself out of a situation like that.

Let's imagine you're Switzerland and you see the evil French attacking you. No problem! You just give somebody (who exactly?) in your country a bathtub full of money, and -- presto! -- immediately there's your brand new aircraft carrier sitting there on Lake Geneva, ready to fight off the enemy.

It don't work that way. You can't just throw money at the problem, you actually need physical parts that need to be put together. Paint has to dry. Stuff like that. You can't rush science by throwing money at it, why can you rush production?

Rush buying was always really, really fake and should be taken out of the game, every game, completely, forever, with no exceptions.

(Gets off soap box. Feels better now.)
 
@ rushing- I remeber reading in a preview or interview that you cannot rush something you've put hammers into. So if you want to rush a building, you either do it right off the bat, or don't do it at all. Since there is no more discounts they won't let you rush something you've already put hammers in. So it's all or nothing, in a sense.
 
@ rushing- I remeber reading in a preview or interview that you cannot rush something you've put hammers into. So if you want to rush a building, you either do it right off the bat, or don't do it at all. Since there is no more discounts they won't let you rush something you've already put hammers in. So it's all or nothing, in a sense.

no i recon you read wrong, purchasing something your already building (if you can only have one) eill probably just cancel it.
 
I keep reading about the poor diplomacy with the main AIs and I have to wonder if this was one case where they chose realism over game-play. In real life you have no measurable way to tell where you stand with another nation in diplomacy, you just know. USA knows that Iran doesn't like them.

From a game-play standpoint, you don't really need to know whether you are -10 or -7, you just need to know that they are pissed at you and war is a strong possibility. I, for one, thing it's good to take out trivial quantitative measurements on diplomacy if this is in fact the case. Additionally, perhaps they added a lot more randomness to how a nation reacts to your actions. In Civ IV you'd just know you were going to be severely negatively impacted by having a different state religion, and you'd always go -1 for rejecting a demand or request for aid. Perhaps Civ V is trying to reflect real life where all leaders aren't going to react the same to your actions towards them.
 
Additionally, perhaps they added a lot more randomness to how a nation reacts to your actions.

I hope they do not do this, or at least the random factor should be fairly small. We do not need the AIs acting like MOO1 "Erratic" leaders. Diplomacy is not interesting when you know there is no point to ever attempting any positive action, because the dice will inevitably roll against you and your actions will be meaningless.

In Civ IV you'd just know you were going to be severely negatively impacted by having a different state religion, and you'd always go -1 for rejecting a demand or request for aid. Perhaps Civ V is trying to reflect real life where all leaders aren't going to react the same to your actions towards them.

Civ IV already had variable responses by leaders -- some cared more about certain things, others reacted more strongly to different triggers. It was not always the same "-1" response -- you could often refuse Gandhi something and get no penalty, while Catherine would give -2, etc. Mao did not really care much about religion, while Isabella cared about nothing else. Mansa Musa would trade anything with anyone, anytime, anywhere, while Tokugawa took a major effort to get any kind of deal.

Admittedly the variability was not as great as it could have been, but it was not nearly as cut-and-dried as many have been saying. Hopefully Civ V will go further in this direction and AIs will have distinct personalities.
 
I hope they do not do this, or at least the random factor should be fairly small. We do not need the AIs acting like MOO1 "Erratic" leaders. Diplomacy is not interesting when you know there is no point to ever attempting any positive action, because the dice will inevitably roll against you and your actions will be meaningless.

Tough luck, I watched a video interview just recently where they said that the AI would be very unpredictable.
 
You need 5 out of 10 full trees to start building utopia. So if you not going for cultural victory, you'll rarely have more than 3 out of 10 full trees, IMHO.

It's also possible that civs not going for a cultural victory might have more policies unlocked overall. If they spread them around for other bonuses instead of focusing on getting to the end of a tree, it might be more advantageous for them.
 
It works both way though, a double edge sword. Just cause the AI is "unpredictable", plays to win, and have various flavours with randomly determined ratings, doesn't mean the AI will be war mongering all the time/against you all the time. I really like the flavours they added to the Leaders, you might know someone, but you ain't really sure how they will react to this or that.

For all you know, Izzy can show up at your door in her night gown for some open borders treaty.
 
I am happy that they made it more like you are playing vs human player that are trying to win, instead of AI that are restricted in there action by gameplay element that do not restrain the players action like in Civ 4, or AI that just feel like obstacle that will do everything to make the player loose and won't care about other AI like in Civ rev.

I think it's gonna be perfectly fine that way.
 
Top Bottom