CiV at PAX East, let's wait!

I figure as long as automated workers can handle the construction of roads and they only act as trade arteries, I don't think the system is going to be a problem.

Also, it potentially allows for the strategic cutting of land supply routes to sections of a civilization during times or war a la Civ:CTP. I always found that concept interesting although I didn't really enjoy the implementation in CTP, mostly due to the amount of hassle unprotected sea trade routes were to manage.
 
What about those little lines we see in screenshots, coming from cities and farms?
 

Attachments

  • IGN- Sid Meier's 39536.jpeg
    IGN- Sid Meier's 39536.jpeg
    310.3 KB · Views: 431
What about those little lines we see in screenshots, coming from cities and farms?

They strike me as minor roads - but they also look extremely alpha and in need of work. They don't appear to interact with the world around them at all, drawing under the sea and over mountain tops as if they're not there.

I hope that this is going to see some serious polish before release.
 
Oh it definitely will, the CiV they were playing with even at PAX was called "alpha beta" lol
 
I don't like the way we won't be able to see the diplo modifiers anymore. That will make diplomacy a lot harder. How will anyone be able to know who likes who anymore?

I agree. He indicated that advisors would play a role, but mostly it would just be learning the leader's playstyle such that you slowly "get to know them" and can learn how to manipulate them effectively.

That said, they specifically included city-states to make sure that stuff happened in the course of the game. One example given was that in one of their test games, a huge world war broke out from an AI empire conquering a city-state that the human player was friendly with. Pretty soon the whole world was at war over it.

I'm just reporting on what I saw/heard, not passing judgment either way.

My personal feelings are mixed, but overall I'm excited by what I saw and can't wait to play!
 
I don't like the way we won't be able to see the diplo modifiers anymore. That will make diplomacy a lot harder. How will anyone be able to know who likes who anymore?


Personally, as long as the advisors give you an idea (pleased/annoyed, etc) of how people are feeling about one another, I'm pretty strongly in favor. Honestly, though, most people on this forum already know how a lot of the leaders will be acting. I like the idea of having the leaders play as though they are friends that you tend to play with (probably because most of my civ games are with friends that I tend to play with)
 
I don't like the way we won't be able to see the diplo modifiers anymore. That will make diplomacy a lot harder. How will anyone be able to know who likes who anymore?

I guess, you'll have to think, how you've acted to your opponent ;).
And ask them, how they feel about the other AIs ;).
 
a huge world war broke out from an AI empire conquering a city-state that the human player was friendly with. Pretty soon the whole world was at war over it.

Sounds pretty much how WWII started (if you accept Poland as the equivalent of a City-State for this argument ;) )!

Aussie.
 
Thanks for the update.

-roads are primarily used for an economic bonus for linking cities; you won't need/want more than a minimum
-if a road goes through a resource tile, that tile yields less than it would otherwise

I like encouraging less roads. The road spaghetti looked ugly, and removed any sense of roads as strategic, that could be blockaded or pillaged to cut a link. Removing the transport bonus for roads, though unrealistic, is a good way to encourage this.
I *hate* the idea of roads reducing tile yields.
That goes compeltely against all logic. Improved transport networks have been one of the biggest sources of economic growth throughout human history.

-you can't see diplomacy modifiers; the design philosophy is that you should learn the other civs as if they are human friends you play a lot with, each with their own unique play styles
I hate this. The system needs to be at least partially transparent to the player so that they can make an intelligent diplomacy strategy. The player needs to know what it is they can do to make a given player less likely to attack them.
I have no problem with a lot of the inner AI workings being hidden, but learning AI personalities by playing through multiple games against them is a terrible way to go. We don't experience history multiple times, with a reset button. That "dseign philosophy" is incoherent.

For an example in a Civ4 conext; its fine for one AI to be more likely to attack me at "pleased" than another is, its NOT fine to hide from me that by taking action X I increased the AI's perception of me from cautious to pleased, while action Y decreased their reaction from friendly to pleased.

-i asked if they had UBs as part of a larger question.. the way he answered was ambiguous, but it sounded like no UBs. could be i'm mistaken on this.
Would be a foolish step backwards to have no UBs, though maybe they're tied into the Civ traits instead (eg Napoleon is good at drafting units, Elizabeth is good at building ships, doesn't need a specific UB to do it). I didn't really like UBs as they were implemented (oooh, my stock market gives me a higher gold bonus than yours does!) but they have a lot of potential.
 
I hate this. The system needs to be at least partially transparent to the player so that they can make an intelligent diplomacy strategy. The player needs to know what it is they can do to make a given player less likely to attack them.
I have no problem with a lot of the inner AI workings being hidden, but learning AI personalities by playing through multiple games against them is a terrible way to go. We don't experience history multiple times, with a reset button. That "dseign philosophy" is incoherent.

I agree - I hope there is some way to tell, perhaps from encounters with their leaders they will display "angry" animations and tones of voice which will let you know that they're annoyed with you.

There must be some indication of their mood other than by their actions, because the whole point of these indicators is to help you predict their future actions.

It's not very useful to go "oh, they're annoyed with me" the turn after they declare war on you.
 
I should also add with their road changes; I hope there is still *some* defender advantage in terms of mobility. There needs to be a strategic advance for being in friendly territory.
 
Sounds pretty much how WWII started (if you accept Poland as the equivalent of a City-State for this argument ;) )!

Aussie.

Curious, I thought rather of WW1 when I read the same sentence ! Are you a little heavy handed on the poles ?
 
I hate [removing visible diplomatic modifiers]. The system needs to be at least partially transparent to the player so that they can make an intelligent diplomacy strategy. . .
But this can be done through other, graphical or event based means rather than having the raw numbers visible to the player. Even in Civ IV, you had to measure the number with the personality of the leader (ie: Catherine declaring even if Friendly). Which is why I always play with random personalities. . ..


Other nations should be a little unpredictable. Personally, I do not want my Civ experience to be a raw mathematical exercise. I understand t hat there are people who do, I am not one of them. To me, that is not what Civ is about.
 
But this can be done through other, graphical or event based means rather than having the raw numbers visible to the player.

Can you describe what you mean?
Take the most basic examples:
i) I have to know if attacking player A will make player B more or less likely to attack me.
ii) I have to know if giving player B money or resources will make B more or less likely to attack me.
iii) I have to know if me trading with player A will make player B more or less likely to attack me.
iv) I need to know at least imprecisely whether or not player B likes me well enough that they will not attack me at all.
v) I need to know at least imprecisely whether or not B hates me enough that they are highly likely to attack me.
vi) I need to know at least imprecisely that if I am at war with player A, whether there is a high or low probability that B will enter the war, and on who's side.
vii) I need to know at least imprecisely how much B cares about something that they like or dislike. If I stop having their favorite civic, will that make a large or small difference? If I refuse their demand for tribute, will that make a large or small difference? If I gift liberate their city back to them, will that make a large or small difference? If I intervene in a war on their behalf (or refuse to do so) will that make a large or small difference?

Its hard to do this without at least some indication of diplomacy modifiers.
 
You can know all of those things without knowing that you have a +8 modifier with player B. All you need to know is "these actions are likely to have a [positive or negative] effect on your relationship with a given player." You do not need to know exactly how much, or if there is a limit, or if some players give more weight to some actions than they do to others.

Will it make a large or a small difference? try it and find out. play the game. If your opponent were an actual nation (or even a human opponent/ally), you would have no idea "exactly" how much a certain action would influence them - shouldn't the game experience to be as close to that as possible?

If you give money to player A, player B can show up and say "Stop helping my enemy!"; now you know that they object to that action. Or your adviser can pop up and say "That's gonna piss off player B". same effect - exact numbers aren't needed.

The process can be transparent without being numerical. That is all that I meant.


Exact numbers turn gameplay into an equation. Equations most likely have a limited number of solutions. That means a limited number of options. I think that is a bad thing. It also leads to the need to limit the AI/player interactions to prevent the human player from taking advantage of the AI (see: no selling cities for cash in civ IV). If the human player can definitively predict the AI response, the human player stops playing the game and starts playing the mechanics - the two are not the same.
 
shouldn't the game experience to be as close to that as possible?

No, its a game. Let people know exactly how much things change, but hide the exact thresholds for various conditions (eg you don't know if the player will attack you at -4 relations or -6 relations or -8 relations). Like in Civ4.
The purpose of the UI is to inform the player as to the affects of their actions, not to hide information from them so as to make it "realistic".

Will it make a large or a small difference? try it and find out. play the game
Trial and error is a terrible way to learn. Why should I have to experience Earth's history several times in order to figure out how the diplomacy engine works?

The process can be transparent without being numerical.
Maybe... but making it numerical is so much simpler, and does a better job of conveying info to the player. I see no advantage to abandoning numerical indicators.

It is good for the player to know that attacking their friend makes them 3x as angry as does refusing their tribute, or that open borders matter 1/5 as much as having once razed one of their cities. This allows you to actually consider a rational diplomatic strategy. you can't easily do this without numbers. It also lets you observe things like "cooling off", where the impact of an action can decline over time. (ie finite duration grudges). You can't convey this kind of info easily without numbers.

The whole game model is an equation, mostly deterministic; combat is an equation with probabilities.
Being mathematical and theoretically solveable is not a reason to abandon a mechanic.

If the human player can definitively predict the AI response, the human player stops playing the game and starts playing the mechanics
If the human player cannot predict the AI response to a significant effectiv, then we can't engage in effective diplomacy.
You can't definitely predict the AI response in Civ4.

I see no design gain from hiding data from the player, they're fixing something that isn't broken.

There's a reason why people like the BUG mod, which reveals even more of the hidden AI/UI variables to the player.
 
So tell me this-can the AI civs gauge when *you* are angry with them? When *you* like them? When you're about to DoW? No, of course not-because you're human. Similarly, when you're playing MP, you're going to have no idea how your fellow players are going to behave-but you *do* hope they'll behave rationally. So why should this be any different for the AI (& trust me, this is coming from someone who actually *liked* the numerical indicators of diplomacy modifiers).
As long as the AI behaves as rationally as it did in CivIV (rather than the highly erratic behaviour of the Civ3 AI) then I'll be happy, & it will make my gameplay experience seem much more.....real. Like every game is an MP game :)!

Aussie.
 
So tell me this-can the AI civs gauge when *you* are angry with them? When *you* like them? When you're about to DoW? No, of course not-because you're human. Similarly, when you're playing MP, you're going to have no idea how your fellow players are going to behave-but you *do* hope they'll behave rationally. So why should this be any different for the AI (& trust me, this is coming from someone who actually *liked* the numerical indicators of diplomacy modifiers).
As long as the AI behaves as rationally as it did in CivIV (rather than the highly erratic behaviour of the Civ3 AI) then I'll be happy, & it will make my gameplay experience seem much more.....real. Like every game is an MP game :)!

Aussie.

Good post. I think that's what they're going for, trying to make the game feel like a multiplayer game as much as possible. The AI is going to act much more like a human too, and pick its allies based on benefitting itself. So yeah, I enjoyed the diplomacy modifiers in Civ IV, but I won't miss them in Civ V. It'll be fun having to figure out how the AI feels about me.
 
Top Bottom