The AI in SC2 is really bad, actually, particularly the Zerg AI. Completely predictable, barely adaptive, inflexible. For a good AI, see GalCiv2 and AI War.
Civ V is more complex than Civ IV
- Thread starter Flavorable
- Start date
The AI in SC2 is really bad, actually, particularly the Zerg AI. Completely predictable, barely adaptive, inflexible. For a good AI, see GalCiv2 and AI War.
First of all RP monarch <<<< immortal/deity!
Monarch is a difficulty where everything goes. You can go wonderwhoring, religion spamming, facerolling whatever and it will work if you are a halfway decent civ player.
I can beat monarch 10/10 times and I don't consider myself a great civ player. However I can "only win immortal 6-7/10 times and have never beaten deity.
"Anyone" can't win all the time (first of all because some maps on immortal+ are unwinnable) on immortal+ even with whip/draft/rushing.
Rushing is NOT a cheezy "I win" strategy on immortal+ - it comes at a cost and risk! You might actually lose your army to a fortified citigarrison archer on a hill. The rush may take to long. Your foe may be protective or have Skirmishers. And even when you wipe him out your economy takes alot of work and skill to recover. Add to that that you just lost a trading partner, that the remaining AIs will get more land to settle and that you will be behind in tech => not an instant "I win" strategy.
Playing on monarch you don't actually have to know anything about the deeper mechanics of the game to win. You don't need to know about warmonger respect, the initial attitude modifier, who will declare at pleased, if you can afford the third city or not, globe + draft rifles etc etc. In order to win on immortal+ you need to know these things and knowing this makes cIV on immortal+ a completely different game than cIV monarch.
So imo if you can beat the game on monarch you don't even qualify to be an ok civ player, but merely an average civ player. Beating emperor consistently makes you an "ok" player, beating immortal consistently makes you a "decent" payer and beating deity a "good" player. Beating deity while using alternative strategies like whonderwhoring, religion grabbing, using medevil wars makes you a great civ player.
I'm sorry that this statement sounds so arrogant
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Ah, really? Hmm. Always had the impression it was the same supply for both.
Showing how often I played unmodded BtS, I suppose.... Played FfH, and then began modding it.
In any case, I still dislike espionage, and it still feels rather forced to me. For that matter, I dislike religions as implemented (face it, in BtS religions were nothing more than diplo modifiers, and quite heavy handed ones at that; Yes, they shine in mods, but the main game is not designed around features that will exist in mods, and we can reimplement them in a better form). Both create large amounts of micro.
That is pretty much exactly what the design was going for. Whether that is better than giving actual info, I can't say, but that was the route chosen.
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
I played Civ II and III seriously, I just tried to enjoy Civ IV more casually.
Johan de Witt
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2005
- Messages
- 415
I am absolutely apalled at the tone some people take here... Saying that someone who plays on monarch isn't a good player is insulting and uncalled for. The OP just tried to explain that he isn't a total 
in this game and I don't think he was trying to brag. I do agree with people posting about the good parts in this game, because sometimes it seems like this forum is just filled with people who hate the game. This isn't the case, a lot of people out there actually love it!
I am not going to give my opinion about whether there is more depth in Civ 4 or 5 (yet), after a while, we got used to exploiting the weaknesses in the Civ 4 AI and I at least, havent mastered exploiting Civ 5's AI yet (I only played one game yet, I'm European and at work atm). The game sure feels more complex strategy-wise.
The only way to test one's strength is against another human being, so bragging about difficulty level isn't getting anyone anywhere.
Now, if we could please get into a real discussion about the complexity of the game again and stop this mudslinging, this thread might actually be an interesting read.
in this game and I don't think he was trying to brag. I do agree with people posting about the good parts in this game, because sometimes it seems like this forum is just filled with people who hate the game. This isn't the case, a lot of people out there actually love it!I am not going to give my opinion about whether there is more depth in Civ 4 or 5 (yet), after a while, we got used to exploiting the weaknesses in the Civ 4 AI and I at least, havent mastered exploiting Civ 5's AI yet (I only played one game yet, I'm European and at work atm). The game sure feels more complex strategy-wise.
The only way to test one's strength is against another human being, so bragging about difficulty level isn't getting anyone anywhere.
Now, if we could please get into a real discussion about the complexity of the game again and stop this mudslinging, this thread might actually be an interesting read.
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
So essentially, what you are saying is that higher difficulties in Civ IV take away complexity since they reduce your options and even require you to exploit knowledge of obscure implementation details.
I, too, believe you have a slightly biased idea of how good the average Civ player is. You're on a forum with a ton of people who know these details so here, beating monarch is average. But 99.9% of civ players are closer to asking for cheats on settler than to winning in monarch.
That's not because they're bad at playing Civ, they just play it to a different end. Not everybody likes running calculations in his head all the time like an Excel spreadsheet, some of us play for fun.
AlexandrosV
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 31
I can't really see the point of arguing on the difficulty level you have to play to be a good civ play. You know, you can play civ IV in different ways, you can play cheating, researching the most unresearched techs (by the AI) and then trading it to all the AI players, in the same turn you discovered it. In that way you could possibily stand at the same tech level of AI. You can sell maps to stupid AI for gold and make thousands of gold in the exploration age... you can save/load when something didn't go well and restart map when the starting location doesn't fit.
OR if you even don't use "cheats" you could be annoyed by the fact AI is winning just because its bonuses, in spite of its bad decisions and lackness of grand strategy.Civ IV was a great game, i loved it, but come on it was just a matter of what to do in certain situation and random outputs in battles. In civ IV you was supposed to do a precise thing in a precise situation, that's not strategy that's knowing the game... you really didn't have to choose anything. Do you want to have the most amazing economy (and then research, and then culture and military): just be sure to build THE right number of cities, at THE right distances... Do you want to be free to go for science victory? Just adopt the religion of the most powerfull civ and build a minimal military: nobody attacks you, apart "mad" civ like shaka and Ghengis, but they weren't really worried by your science victory, but playng their usual role.
In civ V it's different, even if it doesn't work right now. For this reasons i don't see the point of consedering the level of diff. used in civ IV
OR if you even don't use "cheats" you could be annoyed by the fact AI is winning just because its bonuses, in spite of its bad decisions and lackness of grand strategy.Civ IV was a great game, i loved it, but come on it was just a matter of what to do in certain situation and random outputs in battles. In civ IV you was supposed to do a precise thing in a precise situation, that's not strategy that's knowing the game... you really didn't have to choose anything. Do you want to have the most amazing economy (and then research, and then culture and military): just be sure to build THE right number of cities, at THE right distances... Do you want to be free to go for science victory? Just adopt the religion of the most powerfull civ and build a minimal military: nobody attacks you, apart "mad" civ like shaka and Ghengis, but they weren't really worried by your science victory, but playng their usual role.
In civ V it's different, even if it doesn't work right now. For this reasons i don't see the point of consedering the level of diff. used in civ IV
The "difficulty level" is a way to assess the "authority/skill" of a poster. As we are mostly strangers to another we want to know if we are all on the same page. I not necessarily agree to that, just describing why so often "I am a deity player, here my words of wisdom and despair!" comes up.
Uaahaha ungghgnghgn…… so Chess ist not a strategy game? And eventually also Civ 5 will be known and every little aspect analyzed and guides be written.
Uaahaha ungghgnghgn…… so Chess ist not a strategy game? And eventually also Civ 5 will be known and every little aspect analyzed and guides be written.
AlexandrosV
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 31
Well, i disagree.
I've understood your reasons... but can't still see how your "autorithy level" of civ IV could be traslated in civ V...and above all i can't see how one player with less "authority" cannot evalutate the game as well. By the way, like i said before, one could be a better player but playng with tech trading disable it's more difficult, so you have to set difficulty one step down...
Regarding strategy... i didn't mean that civ IV it's not a strategy game. I meant that it was not a Grand strategy game. It was a great managment game. The grand strategy of civ IV was always making more money, because it was the only way to win. All victory conditions in civ IV depend of money (production-conquest victory apart, but you have to pay manteinance costs too).
Yes also civ V it's a game, so it will be discovered in depth, but at least, there will be several roads to victory, because there are 3 and not just one resource (two with culture but that was much less appeling in civ IV).
I've understood your reasons... but can't still see how your "autorithy level" of civ IV could be traslated in civ V...and above all i can't see how one player with less "authority" cannot evalutate the game as well. By the way, like i said before, one could be a better player but playng with tech trading disable it's more difficult, so you have to set difficulty one step down...
Regarding strategy... i didn't mean that civ IV it's not a strategy game. I meant that it was not a Grand strategy game. It was a great managment game. The grand strategy of civ IV was always making more money, because it was the only way to win. All victory conditions in civ IV depend of money (production-conquest victory apart, but you have to pay manteinance costs too).
Yes also civ V it's a game, so it will be discovered in depth, but at least, there will be several roads to victory, because there are 3 and not just one resource (two with culture but that was much less appeling in civ IV).
Gaizokubanou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 253
Because of how the AI will now attack you if it find itself in better military standing (and with that being the only consideration, nothing else), there is only one way to avoid war in Civ5; to have enough army that will stave off any AI's ambition.
And that also mean you can beat the AI in a war anyway, so this makes the game very one dimensional as you only have to worry about your military.
This didn't turn Civ5 into more "strategic" game. It simply puts all AI nations into constant state of aggression against you, where you have no reason to befriend anyone. The only diplomatic option you now have is to wage war eventually. That is far less strategic than Civ4 where you had the option of doing something more than just waging war.
Edit: to make sure I appear less simple minded, I do think that combat in Civ5 is way superior to Civ4. Economy is different but it looks like it can be depthful in its own way. But I still stand by my comments that diplomacy is now nonexistent, and that is a straight reduction in strategy.
IdleEnergy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 80
Yes, exactly right. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Culture in Civ4 was important only as a local phenomenon. Can I push the other player off that tile I want? Is there any real long-term consequence to stacking culture buildings rather than another kind (not really). In Civ5 culture is nationally important and there are real consequences, both positive and negative, to the culture building decision.
AlexandrosV
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 31
I didn't experienced too aggressive AI... maybe it depends on the situation: Caesar didn't attack me even if i had a small army. Hiis army was greater than mine and he not even demanded tributes... instead we've done a pact of cooperation and he was neither attacking another civ: we were alone in a island. In that game i played with king difficulty (now playing emperor)
I'm not saying IT'S NOT too aggressive, i'm saying that in my little experience (for now) it isn't so. I would say instead that is less agressive that in civ IV, because the cost of opportunity for expansion is much higher.
I'm not saying IT'S NOT too aggressive, i'm saying that in my little experience (for now) it isn't so. I would say instead that is less agressive that in civ IV, because the cost of opportunity for expansion is much higher.
I think it's rather multi-dimensional that now military force is as important as other strength like science and culture. Just like how you couldn't forego science even if you persued cultural victory now you need decent military power even for a diplomatic reason. IMO this gives the game more tension and excitement even if you're playing a builder strategy, forcing you to think multi-dimensionally.
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
Or to make a civilization dependant upon you.
Gaizokubanou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 253
Military was always very important in Civ games, now it's the only practical solution. And once again, there is no diplomacy at all in Civ5. You don't build military to conduct diplomacy. If you are doing well, AI hates you no matter what.
In Civ4 diplomacy was predictable but at least you had multitude of options, from all out aggression to lasting friendship.
In Civ5 diplomacy is just as predictable, excpet with only one option, which is backstabbing and war.
So that they can backstab me later when I'm leading ahead and cause annoyance? The AI in Civ5 only wants peace if it's in a position where I can take it out. It makes more sense to just wipe them off the map instead of keeping them alive for no real reason.
Before I begin I want to start by saying I'm not talking about which is better, yes I happen to prefer Civ 4 at the moment but I still working on Civ 5 and it is growing on me.
With that said, however, I can't even fathom how people can think that Civ 5 is more complex. It boggles my mind. The only thing that is more complex is combat. With no more stacks and all units having two or more moves, there's a lot more to think about with each attack.
Other than that the only thing that makes it complex at the moment is the lack of knowledge. Right now we don't know how our actions effect our relations with the of leaders. To this point it doesn't even seem like it matters, you're going to get attacked regardless, but only time will tell.
In Civ 4, every action had consequences, yes we knew exactly what those consequences were but you still had to weight out each decision. For example:
For every civic choice you had to weigh out the lose of benefits vs the new benefits vs anarchy vs relations changes with the AI. With every SP choice all you have to do is decide which benefits you want.
For every tech choice you had to weigh out what building or unit you need vs which civic you need vs trade bait. Now all you have to think about is what building or unit you need.
For every Religious choice you had to weigh the benefits vs anarchy vs relations. Now... oh yea, no religion
Even the little things, IE Great Generals; Merge unit vs settle for XP vs settle for production not to mention what promotions to choose or where to settle. Now it's either golden age or static unit bonus.
The list goings on. Every where you turn there are less and less choices in Civ 5
Global happiness is not more complex than locale happiness. Once all of the numbers are broken done and we know exactly what effects what I think people will realize it's actually simpler than locale happiness. Managing one number with fixed variables(pop, cities vs buildings, resources, wonders, sp's) vs managing multiple numbers (each city) with individual variables (pop, religion, war, espionage, yearn for motherland vs buildings, resources, wonders, troops, civics, slider)
With that said, however, I can't even fathom how people can think that Civ 5 is more complex. It boggles my mind. The only thing that is more complex is combat. With no more stacks and all units having two or more moves, there's a lot more to think about with each attack.
Other than that the only thing that makes it complex at the moment is the lack of knowledge. Right now we don't know how our actions effect our relations with the of leaders. To this point it doesn't even seem like it matters, you're going to get attacked regardless, but only time will tell.
In Civ 4, every action had consequences, yes we knew exactly what those consequences were but you still had to weight out each decision. For example:
For every civic choice you had to weigh out the lose of benefits vs the new benefits vs anarchy vs relations changes with the AI. With every SP choice all you have to do is decide which benefits you want.
For every tech choice you had to weigh out what building or unit you need vs which civic you need vs trade bait. Now all you have to think about is what building or unit you need.
For every Religious choice you had to weigh the benefits vs anarchy vs relations. Now... oh yea, no religion
Even the little things, IE Great Generals; Merge unit vs settle for XP vs settle for production not to mention what promotions to choose or where to settle. Now it's either golden age or static unit bonus.
The list goings on. Every where you turn there are less and less choices in Civ 5
Global happiness is not more complex than locale happiness. Once all of the numbers are broken done and we know exactly what effects what I think people will realize it's actually simpler than locale happiness. Managing one number with fixed variables(pop, cities vs buildings, resources, wonders, sp's) vs managing multiple numbers (each city) with individual variables (pop, religion, war, espionage, yearn for motherland vs buildings, resources, wonders, troops, civics, slider)
Nations don't go from a totalitarian state one year to a free democracy the next, nor do they switch from slavery-supporting states to emancipated states and back again within a decade. Cultures have very deeply ingrained, permanent characteristics. Neither model is entirely "realistic," but arguing that the Civ IV mechanic was closer to "real life" is just hogwash.
Also, Order and Autocracy are not available at the beginning of the game for a reason. Social policies force you to make tough decisions based on your situation that have substantial opportunity costs, rather than having all civic-like options available at all times. I like them.
And to address another point, it should be pretty obvious why social policy builds aren't "built in" to every leader - suggesting that they should be is ludicrous. The number of policies you get during a game isn't even fixed.
Flavorable
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 165
Strategic depth isn't actually about what has more numbers behind it, its what asks the player to be more versatile and intelligent.
The happiness in Civ IV did not have a significant impact on people's playstyle, therefore it didn't add very much depth to the game. Civics aren't permanent, I don't have to consider much beyond 30 turns ahead when I choose a civic because I can always switch back. Social Policies require longterm planning, and it forces you to consider way more factors. Religion really was a paperthin element, and it basically translated to "I can have +2 with this guy, or +2 with this guy, well, it doesn't really matter because I can switch any time."
Once again, more choices/ descisions do not always relate to as strategic/difficult/intelligent choices. The idea that because Civ IV had more numbers behind it makes it a more strategic, complex game just deosn't stand up to scrutiny.
What are you talking about? You should play Civ4 at immortal/diety, then you will see the impact of happiness. Your whole strategy changes depending on if you have ancient era happiness resources around you. If you don't have gold/ivory/fur then you better find some way, maybe adopt a religion, maybe research monarchy asap. However adopting a religion may piss off you neighbors and researching monarchy means you are not getting the great library or catapults for war. These are all strategy decisions.
