Beyond the Monument Episode 20 - Entering the Brave New World! (discussion thread)

[Buccaneer]

There was no way in hell Firaxis was going to fix the AI. They didn't even fix the CIV AI for BTS, that was a community mod they brought in. With the greatly increased complexity of 1upt developing AI was only going to take more time money and effort. Since Firaxis was in no way getting more money why would they go to that extra effort. And Buccaneer, if they don't add features they don't make money, and thus don't work on CIV at all. If you want a good Ai try to start or support an Ai mod. There is only the Fall Patch left for CiV and that will only be a slight fix.

They did a decent compromise with BNW. They fixed the lump sum exploit to no real adverse reaction. They reduced the opportunity cost for swords units. They tried to improve balance and remove player crutches to at least allow more strategies. Since they couldn't fix it, the best solution was to improve gameplay variety. Fixing the incredibly dull and restrictive culture victory, opening up the policy paths, and increasing the benefits of peace all helped that.

I generally agree, I am on record in saying the most important changes (not really features, are they?) were the gold exploits and victory conditions. Also, I understand the economic model, despite my complaints about dumbing down the game to please the masses, and have been an early support of DLC and expansions packs and anything that could keep the programmers programming and artists drawing. In a drastically reduced PC market for gamers, I support them doing whatever to get the resources to develop future DLCs, expansions and full versions. But that doesn't mean I like all of what they chose to spend time on.

 

[Gharry]

Do burial tombs come filled in the base game?

 

[MadDjinn]

Do burial tombs come filled in the base game?

no, that was scenario specific.

 

[Txurce]

In ideal world a more engrossing game with many features and good AI should not be mutually exclusive. In reality they are, because the more features you add, the more chances for the AI to mess everything up.

That's not necessarily true. The AI is mediocre-to-bad at 1upt. It is decent or better at most everything else. As long as the added features don't conflict with each other, the only limit is the game engine. BNW will provide a good test straight away: the AI's ability to win roughly as often as it did in G&K, given how much more complex BNW is. (My guess is that it will be in the ballpark no later than the Fall patch.)

The main argument of infinite happiness haters was that they'd rather have better AI than cheaty AI. Nobody ever admitted said they want a less competent AI. So Firaxis caved to peer pressure and removed the 'cheat', but the AI has yet to show any signs of improvement.

I'm one of those players, but I disagree with how you define what I want. For me, an AI that doesn't cheat makes for a better game. This is true even if it doesn't play any better as a result. (And why would it?)

As a result they'll only get more hate.

Only from a segment (not including me) of the Immortal/Deity players.

There was no way in hell Firaxis was going to fix the AI... They did a decent compromise with BNW. They fixed the lump sum exploit to no real adverse reaction. They reduced the opportunity cost for swords units. They tried to improve balance and remove player crutches to at least allow more strategies. Since they couldn't fix it, the best solution was to improve gameplay variety. Fixing the incredibly dull and restrictive culture victory, opening up the policy paths, and increasing the benefits of peace all helped that.

Agreed.

 

[rastak]

Beyond the Monument ep 20 part 3 (Scramble for Africa scenario) is now on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/0lbkryyBoGA

Thanks Mad!

 

[Buccaneer]

I started listening to the SfA scenario and this, so far, really reminds me of the Jules Verne scenario in Civ2. Anyone remember that?

 

[Louis XXIV]

no, that was scenario specific.

Do they have slots at all in the main game?

 

[God of Kings]

Beyond the Monument ep 20 part 3 (Scramble for Africa scenario) is now on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/0lbkryyBoGA

Thank you very much! It was fun watching it.

 

[rastak]

I started listening to the SfA scenario and this, so far, really reminds me of the Jules Verne scenario in Civ2. Anyone remember that?

I didn't play any scenarios back in the day so I probably missed out some cool stuff. It was always start a game there's your settler.

 

[Hyper Nova]

Anyone else notice no DELUXE conquest of the new world in the stream? What happened to that?

 

[The Pilgrim]

And you'll get through the filter, right?

Not in a million years. As far as I'm concerned, they should have invested all the resources thrown on fancy graphics, 54545 civs and all other bling blings into AI department; DLC model should have not existed in the first place and the list goes on. I'm perfectly aware what's the chances of these to get trough filters.

There was no way in hell Firaxis was going to fix the AI. They didn't even fix the CIV AI for BTS, that was a community mod they brought in. With the greatly increased complexity of 1upt developing AI was only going to take more time money and effort. Since Firaxis was in no way getting more money why would they go to that extra effort. And Buccaneer, if they don't add features they don't make money, and thus don't work on CIV at all. If you want a good Ai try to start or support an Ai mod. There is only the Fall Patch left for CiV and that will only be a slight fix.

Sad but true. Although I expect multiple balancing patches to come. Now when they are finished with the content (apart from DLC's which may or may not be released in the future) they can focus on better gameplay from strategy PoV. AI decision making will be better eventually, I'm sure. Let's talk about this next year.

They did a decent compromise with BNW. They fixed the lump sum exploit to no real adverse reaction. They reduced the opportunity cost for swords units. They tried to improve balance and remove player crutches to at least allow more strategies. Since they couldn't fix it, the best solution was to improve gameplay variety. Fixing the incredibly dull and restrictive culture victory, opening up the policy paths, and increasing the benefits of peace all helped that.

There is still plenty of room for improvement. They changed things based on what community asked. Now the real beta testing begins.

That's not necessarily true. The AI is mediocre-to-bad at 1upt. It is decent or better at most everything else. As long as the added features don't conflict with each other, the only limit is the game engine. BNW will provide a good test straight away: the AI's ability to win roughly as often as it did in G&K, given how much more complex BNW is. (My guess is that it will be in the ballpark no later than the Fall patch.)

First of all, based on what we could see in MD's game (and again, one game is not a good indication, but it's enough to feed my paranoia ) it can't win as often as it did in G&K, because on t320 none of the AI controlled civs was anywhere near winning. I welcome the change of CV and DV wholeheartedly and yet I don't see the AI being able to achieve either. Moreover, seems like their ability to achieve SV got nerfed too. So if those impressions are not too far from the truth, we got an AI that can't win at all. Yay.

I'm one of those players, but I disagree with how you define what I want. For me, an AI that doesn't cheat makes for a better game. This is true even if it doesn't play any better as a result. (And why would it?)

I don't define what you personally want. Why would I? I quote what other players repeat over and over again. Removing the bonuses without compensating for that in some way makes worse AI. If worse AI means better game for you... well... you're in minority. Civ is strategy game after all and quality AI plays and should play a huge role in overall game quality, whether you like it or not.

Only from a segment (not including me) of the Immortal/Deity players.

Right. Because the majority of ranters are Immortal/Deity players. Lol.

 

[Gamewizard]

First of all, based on what we could see in MD's game (and again, one game is not a good indication, but it's enough to feed my paranoia ) it can't win as often as it did in G&K, because on t320 none of the AI controlled civs was anywhere near winning. I welcome the change of CV and DV wholeheartedly and yet I don't see the AI being able to achieve either. Moreover, seems like their ability to achieve SV got nerfed too. So if those impressions are not too far from the truth, we got an AI that can't win at all. Yay.

1 - Archipelago map is not in the AI's favor
2- He wasn't up against any CV dominant Civ like Brazil or France
3 - Djinn has been playing the game for months now and was already really good to begin with

Like you said, one game is not a large enough sample. I would be interested to know if he ever loses...has he been winning on Pangaea maps surrounded by aggressive warmongers?

 

[Cyanfunk]

I'd imagine that if Pedro were in the game, MD would have a much harder time flipping Civs.

 

[Ryoga]

Anyone else notice no DELUXE conquest of the new world in the stream? What happened to that?

There is no trace of that in the xml files and since it didn't appear in MadDjinn's video,
unless they'll give us a last minute patch for the release of the game, we won't get it.

 

[Buccaneer]

I don't define what you personally want. Why would I? I quote what other players repeat over and over again. Removing the bonuses without compensating for that in some way makes worse AI. If worse AI means better game for you... well... you're in minority. Civ is strategy game after all and quality AI plays and should play a huge role in overall game quality, whether you like it or not.

Right. Because the majority of ranters are Immortal/Deity players. Lol.

Sometimes, I really begin to wonder if they truly want to dumb down the game enough to call it SimCiv - building a wide-spread civilization with only token opposition/natural disasters and not caring about victory conditions.

The problem is that while the roleplayers/SimCivvers can do their thing on any level - hard or easy (depending on skill), just like you can make up a "story" about a chess match, a simulation ruins the strategy game for the rest of us. We have seen this in many other mainstream series, players don't really want to have to think much.

Now, your dream and mine (and Mad et al) of improved 1upt combat is difficult to do. I used to play tons of John Tiller wargames (probably the best traditional hex-based wargame designer/programmer there was) and even at that, Civ5's AI combat was far superior (which was why we stuck with PBEM for those game). It can't be all technological changes in the past 15 year but it showed how far we have come and yet to go. I have not kept up but I would be surprise if there is hex-based, turn-based wargame out there that has the AI being able to place and recycle units as well as the human player. As much as we can bemoan some of the things the AI does in Civ5, it's actually pretty good considering how difficult it is to do such thing.

But in the end, for me at least, being able to figure out the puzzle of 1upt in attacking a city (for example) is by far the best thing in the Civ series since the Tech Tree. The AI can make it challenging by limiting your resources in bringing enough units to bear against them and to be able to have quality units to succeed. That becomes the equalizer for a lot of us.

 

[Txurce]

First of all, based on what we could see in MD's game (and again, one game is not a good indication, but it's enough to feed my paranoia ) it can't win as often as it did in G&K, because on t320 none of the AI controlled civs was anywhere near winning. I welcome the change of CV and DV wholeheartedly and yet I don't see the AI being able to achieve either. Moreover, seems like their ability to achieve SV got nerfed too. So if those impressions are not too far from the truth, we got an AI that can't win at all. Yay.

That's why I said BNW will be a great test for the devs' approach. We'll see whether the emphasis on feature complexity broke the AI (which is the backbone of the game). If they can't win, it's broken - and if they can, it's a vastly improved game. Simple as that, in my view.

I expect multiple balancing patches to come. Now when they are finished with the content (apart from DLC's which may or may not be released in the future) they can focus on better gameplay from strategy PoV. AI decision making will be better eventually, I'm sure. Let's talk about this next year.

I said the Fall patch, you say longer. It'll be somewhere in there.

Removing the bonuses without compensating for that in some way makes worse AI. If worse AI means better game for you... well... you're in minority. Civ is strategy game after all and quality AI plays and should play a huge role in overall game quality, whether you like it or not.

When you say a strong AI should play a huge role in a strategy game, you're stating the obvious. And when you imply I'm against it, you're off-base and missing my thrust. The error in your thinking is that you don't know that they didn't compensate in some other way. If a mod could make major changes to AI happiness and gold spending, yet wind up with a very tough (and more interesting) AI, then so could Ed Beach & Co. I have little reason to think they said "people want less artificial happiness, so let's give it to them," and stopped there. If you do, I would suggest holding out little hope for those patches.

Sometimes, I really begin to wonder if they truly want to dumb down the game enough to call it SimCiv - building a wide-spread civilization with only token opposition/natural disasters and not caring about victory conditions.

As much as we can bemoan some of the things the AI does in Civ5, it's actually pretty good considering how difficult it is to do such thing... being able to figure out the puzzle of 1upt in attacking a city (for example) is by far the best thing in the Civ series since the Tech Tree. The AI can make it challenging by limiting your resources in bringing enough units to bear against them and to be able to have quality units to succeed. That becomes the equalizer for a lot of us.

I agree that the AI is pretty good overall, although nothing would please me more than its improvement. But I don't follow how BNW has dumbed down the game. At worst, they have "smartened up" the game past the abilities of the current AI... and we won't know that until the mid-level players give us their experiences over their first several games.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Sometimes, I really begin to wonder if they truly want to dumb down the game enough to call it SimCiv - building a wide-spread civilization with only token opposition/natural disasters and not caring about victory conditions.

The problem is that while the roleplayers/SimCivvers can do their thing on any level - hard or easy (depending on skill), just like you can make up a "story" about a chess match, a simulation ruins the strategy game for the rest of us. We have seen this in many other mainstream series, players don't really want to have to think much.

The problem is TBS is a niche genre and Firaxis wants to make money. Unfortunately, as long as dumbing down the game will increase the sales, they'll stay on this path. No reason not to. They are trying really hard to eat a cake and have it too, but there's only so much they can do, the budget isn't infinite. On the other hand, the base of players that don't give a damn about simulation and role playing is wide enough to make sure Civ will never become SimCiv. We'll be stuck in the middle forever.

Now, your dream and mine (and Mad et al) of improved 1upt combat is difficult to do. I used to play tons of John Tiller wargames (probably the best traditional hex-based wargame designer/programmer there was) and even at that, Civ5's AI combat was far superior (which was why we stuck with PBEM for those game). It can't be all technological changes in the past 15 year but it showed how far we have come and yet to go. I have not kept up but I would be surprise if there is hex-based, turn-based wargame out there that has the AI being able to place and recycle units as well as the human player. As much as we can bemoan some of the things the AI does in Civ5, it's actually pretty good considering how difficult it is to do such thing.

Combat AI won't be better, I didn't expect it to and won't expect in the future. However, the devil is in the details. There are many small and very doable things that will have a very positive effect. And AI that is unable to achieve 3/4 designed VC's is just silly.

That's why I said BNW will be a great test for the devs' approach. We'll see whether the emphasis on feature complexity broke the AI (which is the backbone of the game). If they can't win, it's broken - and if they can, it's a vastly improved game. Simple as that, in my view.

AI was broken in G&K and vanilla. One of the goals (IMO) of CV/DV overhaul was to make them available to AI as well as to player. If AI is still unable to pull off a win, sorry, it fails the test.

I said the Fall patch, you say longer. It'll be somewhere in there.

I assume it'll take more that one patch to finalize the balance, but we'll see. It's not that we'll quit playing until that happens.

When you say a strong AI should play a huge role in a strategy game, you're stating the obvious. And when you imply I'm against it, you're off-base and missing my thrust. The error in your thinking is that you don't know that they didn't compensate in some other way. If a mod could make major changes to AI happiness and gold spending, yet wind up with a very tough (and more interesting) AI, then so could Ed Beach & Co. I have little reason to think they said "people want less artificial happiness, so let's give it to them," and stopped there. If you do, I would suggest holding out little hope for those patches.

Well, you basically said removing AI bonuses makes a better game regardless whether it has been improved. And I must disagree, because I'd rather have competitive AI with unfair bonuses than incompetent AI without them. That's all. And I'm judging based on one game, I know that. I don't have anything else atm. Again, I'd be glad to be proven wrong eventually.

 

[The Pilgrim]

1 - Archipelago map is not in the AI's favor
2- He wasn't up against any CV dominant Civ like Brazil or France
3 - Djinn has been playing the game for months now and was already really good to begin with

Yeah, the same excuses we hear and make for almost 3 years now. A map is too tough, a VC is too tough, a player is too tough... It's not prince.

 

[m15a]

i'm not really following when civ was the least dumb. or when is the point at which civ was dumbed down? are you talking about over the span of civ games, or the from vanilla, or did the game get peak smartness at G&K? it's just weird because these "civ is now a sim game" have been around since civ 3 at least. but at the same time, civ 1 and 2 seem kind of ridiculously easy now*, especially with the wealth of knowledge on civfanatics. (i played through all of them last year before i got a computer that could play civ 5.)

i guess i'm just wondering whether you're really saying that civ is getting "dumber" and should go back to it's roots or you are saying that you don't like civ's roots and want the game to change to suit you.

* edit: okay, not ridiculous. but they only took a couple weeks to seem not only easy but too simple. and that's after 15 years or so of not playing either.

 

[Txurce]

Unfortunately, as long as dumbing down the game will increase the sales, they'll stay on this path...

AI that is unable to achieve 3/4 designed VC's is just silly...

AI was broken in G&K and vanilla. One of the goals (IMO) of CV/DV overhaul was to make them available to AI as well as to player. If AI is still unable to pull off a win, sorry, it fails the test.

Again, to me the game has been smartened up with BNW. Whether the AI can handle it is TBD. The AI can presently achieve all VC except Conquest. I have lost against them all on Immortal, so I definitely don't consider G&K broken.

I assume it'll take more that one patch to finalize the balance, but we'll see. It's not that we'll quit playing until that happens.

You're probably right, but I'm an optimist when it comes to a game where I have enjoyed every single step forward from its saved-by-1upt inception.

Well, you basically said removing AI bonuses makes a better game regardless whether it has been improved. And I must disagree, because I'd rather have competitive AI with unfair bonuses than incompetent AI without them. That's all. And I'm judging based on one game, I know that. I don't have anything else atm. Again, I'd be glad to be proven wrong eventually.

Anyone who plays on higher levels (including you and me) would rather have competitive AI with unfair bonuses than incompetent AI without them. I said removing the AI happiness cheat makes for a better game. If the devs stopped there, then the AI has been made worse. Since I seriously doubt that is the only change to the AI in BNW, I'll reserve judgment on how it affects the AI until after I play several games. And I'm hoping you're proven wrong enough to eventually have new tips to give me to improve my game against that AI!