I'm thinking that I should rephrase my argument from 'uniques allow for more strategic options' to 'uniques allow for a wider array of possible strategies for the player to choose from'. They most certainly do that, and whilst I see your argument that in a given game they may limit your strategy (although not compulsorily), they do offer a far greater array of possible strategic paths which you can possibly explore.
Civ5- A Whole New Civ
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
I'm thinking that I should rephrase my argument from 'uniques allow for more strategic options' to 'uniques allow for a wider array of possible strategies for the player to choose from'. They most certainly do that, and whilst I see your argument that in a given game they may limit your strategy (although not compulsorily), they do offer a far greater array of possible strategic paths which you can possibly explore.
That would not be the only thing I disagree with Soren Johnson on, then.
Only if you are willing to lock certain choices in before the game starts or you know your environment.
I can see the argument that UUs/UBs/traits allow one to select, or at least skew for, a preferred strategy before the game begins.
This to my mind is a drawback, if it limits your ability to adapt to a situation for which that preferred strategy is not optimal.
And if what you actually want is a situation where you get to work with a different strategy than you are used to, or one that's not to your taste, why not just choose the different strategy ? What benefit is there to making the game force you into it ?
And my argument boils down to, how is it not better strategic variety to have all that array of possible strategic paths available in every game ?
There is nothing in the basic game removing constraints to prevent any player choosing to apply them of their own accord, which is how we got things like one-city challenges in the first place.
deanej
Deity
Most of the time UUs won't limit strategy. Using them is not mandatory, and most of them are better than the unit they replace (as in, if you were to choose between the default unit and your civ's UU, you would either use the UU regardless of your strategy or not care). Here are some examples:
-The case where the UU is better regardless: Redcoat, Praetorian, etc.
-The "who cares?"/depends on strategy case: Gallic Warrior, Quecha, etc.
-The ususally worse than standard case: Jaguar (any others?)
-The case where the UU is better regardless: Redcoat, Praetorian, etc.
-The "who cares?"/depends on strategy case: Gallic Warrior, Quecha, etc.
-The ususally worse than standard case: Jaguar (any others?)
That's not the scale of my argument.
Having one UU does not limit your strategy. Being unable to get the other eighteen, or thirty-one, or whatever units that might also be useful to you because they are other civilisation's UUs does limit your strategy.
deanej
Deity
So the fact that you have to adapt your strategy to the game is bad? Basing a generic strategy around a UU is a bad idea. You shouldn't be using them as crutches! There are no UUs that enable you to do anything that you would be unable to do without them. If all the civs were identical, this would limit replayability.
The fact of having your strategic landscape skewed before you start playing is bad, yes.
If all the Civs had possible asaccess to the same (much wider) range of units, and did so adaptively depending on game circumstances, that owuld give you more variety, not less.
deanej
Deity
As well as a zillion more things to keep track of. Not to mention that civ 4's combat system does not allow for many more units than currently exist - having multiple units that essentially do the same thing is bad. And too many is bad too - it's hard for new players to keep track of that many units!
You probably want UBs, starting tech, and leader traits removed as well. For that matter, let's just make every tile on the map identical. The map is generated before you start playing, and what your starting tiles are can limit your strategy, so having different tiles must be bad too.
You probably want UBs, starting tech, and leader traits removed as well. For that matter, let's just make every tile on the map identical. The map is generated before you start playing, and what your starting tiles are can limit your strategy, so having different tiles must be bad too.
This is because Civ 4's combat system sucks cold potato soup through a straw.
It's notable that Civ 3's combat system supports a much wider variety of units, each having a logical place and reason for existing, in mods that have been designed that way (Rise and Rule),
Do we really want to optimise Civ 5 for players completely new to strategy games at the expense of having a deeper and more flexible gaming experience ?
I don't believe so. I think that if there is a strong desire to make PC Civ games that are siginificantly simpler to pick up, the solution is to port Civ Rev (or some putative Civ Rev 2) to the PC, rather than lobotomising Civ 5.
Yep.
Hundreds of techs and hundreds of units, of which any given different civilisiation selects the fraction that suits its environment and possibly its personality/strategic preferences best, gives you every bit as much variety as the UU/UB/starting tech/leader trait crutches for forcing civs into different roles.
Not at all. You're confusing scales there.
What's on the map, you find out and adapt to over the course of the game as a whole. The information exists in some abstract sense from the beginning, but when you don't have that information, the strategic issue is not there from the beginning.
deanej
Deity
Like attack/defense values only is better. Civ3 combat can be summarized by the following: spam calvary and win.
I don't mean new to strategy games even - new to civ 5 would be enough! You shouldn't have to open the civilopedia before every action. And civ rev is too simple for my tastes; civ 4 got it about right.
I guess you aren't aware that many resources can't be seen until you research the required tech. It's possible for a start to look good and then wind up not being able to build military units.
Like it or not, most people that play civ are casual gamers. Games are made for casual games. Civ4 was not made for the hardcore civ fans. The fact that many hardcore civ fans like civ4 is just a bonus for Firaxis, nothing more.
Ever wonder why there haven't been any new SimCity games recently? It's because SimCity 4 was so complex that the only people that played it were hardcore SimCity fans - which was not enough for EA to continue the franchise. Games are not made for niche audiences. I'm willing to bet the civ4 would not have been made multiplayer had it not benefited the development process (and being so easy to do since it was rewritten from scratch).
moscaverde
Prince
A single UU and UB just add coolnes factor. They doesn't change the game so much.
Yes it is. Particularly when variable hitpoints and variable firepower are added. Multiple axes of strategic difference, where Civ 4 only has one in unit strength and has to overlay whole different modes like rock/paper/scissors combat and promotions just to make it half-way work.
Having an overly strong unit if you get to it first is a problem with number and variety of units, not a problem of the underlying model.
Why would you ? Give it one good pass first, and a few as you are playing your first couple of learning games, and that's it.
I think there's a non-trivial number of people out there for whom Civ 4 and indeed Civ 3 are in their different ways insufficiently complex. Hence the popularity of such mods as Rise and Rule and Fall From Heaven that asdd significant complexity.
Which is a problem with having too few unit options and too few ways of getting ahead without iron or horses, no ?
I would say it's because SimCity is not a game, it's a toy, and they are different markets.
I beg leave to doubt that. RTS is a niche audience; 4X is a niche audience; first-person shooters are a niche audience.
Quite likely; myself I'd consider that no great loss at all. But surely the example of multiplayer is clear evidence that a vocal minority of the target audience can have their priorities taken on board ?
deanej
Deity
Civ4 has variable hitpoints, it just doesn't use them. I don't think any mods do either.
Takes me more than a couple games to learn everything. And keeping track of all the techs, units, buildings, etc. is hard. I still have to consult the tech advisor a lot because I still don't know all the tech prereqs.
To be honest, I haven't even heard of Rise and Rule. Fall From Heaven requires players to be familiar with civ4 first before even considering playing it. The only reason it is able to be that complex is because it builds on civ 4's learning curve. Such complexity is perfect for mods, but not suitable for the base game.
You obviously have never played SimCity 4. Balancing the budget can be challenging, especially when a city (or player) is new (before the Rush Hour expansion pack it was very difficult for new players to balance the budget).
Not really. That's one of the most popular generas of games, especially among younger players.
All games have to be made to draw in more than just the core audience. The core audience is not enough to support a game; they will not draw in enough money for the publisher (at the core, everything is about getting enough money for the publisher).
I think its more evidence that the ease of implementing it (remember: civ4 was started from scratch) and the fact that it made development easier (example: no AI was needed until late in development, allowing developers to add and remove features at will). Please watch the DVD that comes with Civilization Chronicles for more insight on this.
Civ V should NOT start from scratch. It should be a game with broader horizons and capabilities that comes with initial settings and scenario that emulates CivIVBtS. But if you change the scenario or settings it can do so much more. It should be to current civ as a solid to a plane. Seen from one particular direction they may look the same, but the solid has so much more depth.
I understand the philosophy of taking something away for each thing you add, but I ask you did Civ IV become worse by the additions it picked up on the road from Vanilla to BtS 3.19? Its true you don't want to have too much to micromanage, or give the player or ai special tricks, but a game can be like one of those graphic fractals, with an edge that keeps adding and adding without actually enlarging that much. When its like that you lose out when you take away something central for something peripheral. Keep everything in spirit, find a way to do it better, and add more in a way that doesn't intrude.
Civ V as a Civ IV emulator with myriad added optional features would also be easy to learn yet would have gobs of features that could be advertising points. Bottom line: custom game cubed.
I understand the philosophy of taking something away for each thing you add, but I ask you did Civ IV become worse by the additions it picked up on the road from Vanilla to BtS 3.19? Its true you don't want to have too much to micromanage, or give the player or ai special tricks, but a game can be like one of those graphic fractals, with an edge that keeps adding and adding without actually enlarging that much. When its like that you lose out when you take away something central for something peripheral. Keep everything in spirit, find a way to do it better, and add more in a way that doesn't intrude.
Civ V as a Civ IV emulator with myriad added optional features would also be easy to learn yet would have gobs of features that could be advertising points. Bottom line: custom game cubed.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,939
It seems that rysmiel draws the attention of the community. 
It changes of me!
But they are available in every game. Only at the start of it. And even later, since you don't have to use traits, UUs or UBs, but can adapt to your environment. UUs, UBs and traits are not that decisive such as the non use of them will be a severe handicap.
It changes of me! But they are available in every game. Only at the start of it. And even later, since you don't have to use traits, UUs or UBs, but can adapt to your environment. UUs, UBs and traits are not that decisive such as the non use of them will be a severe handicap.
I would presume that if you want a game about that level of complicated you would need about that level of learning curve, then ?
It's a Civ 3 mod; I am mostly a Civ 3 player.
I think we are at axiom lock here, then; to me, that sort of level of complexity is what the base game should ideally be.
My point here is, all computer games are niche markets out of six or sevenn billion people.
I have watched it. I understand the philosophy. And it came out with a Civ 4 that was IMO a lot worse than Civ 3; therefore, i think it's reasonable to consider that the philosophy may be flawed.
I definitely disagree here; Civ IV threw way too many useful things out when starting again, and Civ 5 would do best to start with integrating the best elemnents of Civ 2, 3 and 4.
I don't, myself. Not at the level of complexity vanilla Civ 3 or Civ 4 is at.
So you are choosing your set of tools before you know what you have to adapt them too- even better- it means that you are likely to develop several different strategies for each set of uniques, rather than knowing what you having to do, and choosing the same set of uniques based off that.
It may limit your adaptation, but it also necessitates it. If you know what strategy you will need without uniques, then you will not have to adapt with the tools given to the particular situation. With uniques, however, you have to adapt. Which means that there is more impromptu strategic thinking and planning, rather than predesignated strategic planning.
You still can choose a particular strategy if you so desire. Just choose the civilization and leader that suits the strategy, and keep regenerating the map until an appropriate one comes up. Or, even better, build a map yourself.
With uniques, you do, plus more. You can choose any at the start of the game.
The same applies to nothing stopping the player predetermining a strategy to use in a game. It works both ways.
I see it as a choice between "you have this set of tools no matter what" and "you can pick the tools that suits the situation".
Why is being forced to adapt good ?
Why, if you want to adapt, can't you choose to do so whether you are forced or not ?
There seem to be underlying assumptions here about both these questions that I don't get.
Similar threads
