Dreams of the Sulla Mod

[Dale]

Is it a better overall balanced play than civ IV BTS? Is it as fun with mods? Do any come close to the depth of the FfH mods?

And how long did it take for Civ4 to get that good? 3-5 years?

 

[King_Course]

The way I read Sullas walkthrough and most of the Civ V critiscism, I was left with a feeling that these people had played Civ IV too much. Played it to death more or less, and realising that their refined strategies for winning high levels Civ IV was stomping Civ V, thus not giving them any reason to repeat the whole process again.

For instance, I think the developers noticed how ICS was being used in Civ IV and they said, okay, lets make the Maritime States so that they support this strategy.

But Sulla didn't recognise this, he thought it a mistake and an oversight. Because he had played Civ IV to death and wanted something else, not something accomodating his tactics and thus making them easier for him.

In this way, I also felt he came out way too negative, and saw himself angered at a game that wasn't going to challenge him, but was aimed to let new people pick up the tactics Civ IV players had refined. It read for me between the lines, someone who was not criticising Civ V, but someone who was dead tired of Civ IV.

Now after we have seen the "vets" take the game apart more or less with different kinds of spearheading, we are beginning to see people pick up the challenge of more "normalised" games of multifacetted approaches and strategies.

Me I played the GOTM3 from here for instance. I made 4 cities going for a cultural win. I din't settle on the marble, I didn't horsemen rush, I didn't conquer my continent ASAP. I didn't make puppets out of everything. I rased a city cause they don't war declare you if theres abit of space. I used Great Generals to set up Citadels.

Great Scientists to make Academys instead of jumping into eras.

And I played a competitive game on King level that had me engaged and busy as a bee.

Now if you settle on marble, horsemen rush yadda yadda yadda... You WILL get the damn same game every time, you chose it to be so. I can accept this, but I have a hard time accepting when you come here for the umpthheen time and tell us you did the exact same and the game ended the exact same, and you found this to be a very boring result. (not personally directed at Sulla, but the whole "feel" of this place)

By doing so you fail to identify the weaknesses of Civ V correctly, like the AI, the diplomacy. Instead these things just become "the last straw". And thus you end up without being able to actively make your critiscism constructive.

When I was a kid, I played Civ for months and months. I played Prince and King difficulty and was challenged. I made a friend and he played Civ too, he told me he could beat Emperor. I wanted to know how cause I couldn't. He told me you just had to rush militarilly, then leave the AI his capital. You had to build citys around his capital to fence him in and you just conquered everything that left his city.

And so he played hour after hour clicking his turns and managing his cities without any challenge left to the game whatsoever. Why did he enjoy it? Cause we were kids I guess. And he was beating Emperor. I kept playing my own game though.

And I can't help but feel this is somehow the same scenario going on here. They have improved the AI, will work on Diplo, we are starting to see what really flawed the launch, and starting too see the game come through. But I suspect those fencing the AI in on Emperor level will never see it...

 

[Revoran]

Well you would be seriously incorrect, since I have only been impressed by Civ4 and Civ5 of their games. In fact, if you were to look up my review of Railroads on Apolyton you would find it extremely unflattering to say the least.

As for getting onto their dev team, sorry, but I'm getting twice as much now in my current job than I would be working for Firaxis.

Not to mention you'd have to move from Victoria to Washington US. Bleh

 

[pi-r8]

I don't post at Apolyton. I also don't attack others.

If you actually take the time to read my post on page 1, you'll see I'm actually highlighting that IMO Sulla would be looking for Civ4+, not a new take on an old idea.

And after reading his site, it's pretty obvious to anyone that is exactly what Sulla is looking for. Civ4+, not a new take on an old idea.

If you look at Civ5 as a new game, and not Civ4+, then the game isn't that bad. By itself, it's a decent game with problems, which are being addressed in patches I might add. What people complain about, is that the game is not Civ4+.

It's interesting that we went through the exact same thing with Civ3. It was not Civ2+.

I never really understood this criticism at all. Civ 4 was a great game, and hugely popular. A lot of us make no secret about the fact that we like it a lot, although clearly it does have flaws which could be improved.

Why, then, would you want to make civ 5 a totally new game? Why not just take the basic game design and fix it up a little? That's what starcraft 2 did, and it worked fine there. Trying to revolutionize the civ series by changing everything just seems weird- they should make a spinoff if that's what they want to do. It would be like if a car company said "OK the 2009 cadillac was a great car, and a lot of people loved it. But for the next model, we're going to change it to a convertible, since some people prefer those". There's just no reason for making a drastic change like that, while keeping the same name.

 

[civ_king]

I never really understood this criticism at all. Civ 4 was a great game, and hugely popular. A lot of us make no secret about the fact that we like it a lot, although clearly it does have flaws which could be improved.

Why, then, would you want to make civ 5 a totally new game? Why not just take the basic game design and fix it up a little? That's what starcraft 2 did, and it worked fine there. Trying to revolutionize the civ series by changing everything just seems weird- they should make a spinoff if that's what they want to do. It would be like if a car company said "OK the 2009 cadillac was a great car, and a lot of people loved it. But for the next model, we're going to change it to a convertible, since some people prefer those". There's just no reason for making a drastic change like that, while keeping the same name.

That's called a patch or at most an expansion pack

Make no mistakes unpatched Civ IV was an atrocity

 

[pi-r8]

That's called a patch or at most an expansion pack

Make no mistakes unpatched Civ IV was an atrocity

How was it an atrocity? I remember some bugs that were annoying but they got fixed. I also remember some balance issues with particular units and civics. The basic game was fine, though.

The best thing BTS added was the improved AI, but that was actually a mod made by someone working alone, not Firaxis.

 

[PieceOfMind]

How was it an atrocity? I remember some bugs that were annoying but they got fixed. I also remember some balance issues with particular units and civics. The basic game was fine, though.

The best thing BTS added was the improved AI, but that was actually a mod made by someone working alone, not Firaxis.

Not quite true. IIUC Blake was working for Firaxis when he contributed to the AI for BtS. At least, he wasn't doing it for free. Of course that's not to say that he couldn't have done it for free, which is what he did for the BAI mod for Warlords.

 

[pi-r8]

Not quite true. IIUC Blake was working for Firaxis when he contributed to the AI for BtS. At least, he wasn't doing it for free. Of course that's not to say that he couldn't have done it for free, which is what he did for the BAI mod for Warlords.

Yeah that's what I was talking about. I was under the impression that the BtS AI is basically the same as the AI mod he did for warlords. That was a while ago though, so I might not remember correctly.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It included probably most of what was done in Better AI, yes, but that doesn't mean it was all written as part of that mod. I distinctly remember a period where Blake just stopped working on the mod, and for a while I was hoping it meant he'd been snapped up by Firaxis. Turned out to be right, and that alone pretty much sold me on BtS, so I bought it on release day.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I don't post at Apolyton. I also don't attack others.

If you actually take the time to read my post on page 1, you'll see I'm actually highlighting that IMO Sulla would be looking for Civ4+, not a new take on an old idea.

And after reading his site, it's pretty obvious to anyone that is exactly what Sulla is looking for. Civ4+, not a new take on an old idea.

If you look at Civ5 as a new game, and not Civ4+, then the game isn't that bad. By itself, it's a decent game with problems, which are being addressed in patches I might add. What people complain about, is that the game is not Civ4+.

It's interesting that we went through the exact same thing with Civ3. It was not Civ2+.

That's weird. I could have sworn you were pointing out to Apolyton review earlier on, saying that aside from the bad it was also presenting a good side, while Sulla's review was without depicting the good. Nevermind, maybe you've meant Apolyton review, not yours.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion so like I said - if you like the game, then more power to you.
But to come to modding forum and make snide remarks that someone "gasp" dares to compare Civ4 and Civ5 (I'm sorry but I think it's normal to compare new part of the series with the previous one, no?) and try to improve the game... What's your problem with that?

I don't go to FFH section and go "omg you want to play WoW, are you prejudiced to Civ4 or sth?". Yes, Sulla doesn't like Civ5. Yes, he prefers Civ4. So do I. And many others. We'd really want to like Civ5, but the game is shallow and underdeveloped. BjoernLars has started a thread to perhaps create a mod for Civ5 that would allow us to enjoy it too. End of story.

You say "go and play Civ4", I say "go and play vanilla Civ5". Stop derailing the thread.

This is not General Discussion. This is Modding section.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think Sulla is being intentionally overly harsh to the game, although there are at least several well-working features that he has complained about. I generally like the game, so that's where I think our agreement ends (although I do think he wants to like the game). I do think this is spot on and I think any mod that would be on topic for this thread would have to address it:

And for the record, I don't believe that this game has been "dumbed down", as some readers incorrectly seemed to take away from my other Civ5 reports. This game doesn't suffer from a lack of complexity, and you can see that Civ5 is intended to present lots of interesting strategic choices. Notice the phrasing I use there, however: the game is "intended" to present strategic choices. The problem is that this game has terribly poor balancing, and the developers literally don't understand their own game. You are supposed to use granaries/watermills to increase growth - but they are made obsolete and ineffecient through maritime food. You are supposed to specialize your cities with things like barracks and stables and windmills - but the maintenance costs make them too expensive, and you're better off never building any of these. You are supposed to plan your tile improvements carefully - but trade post spam, especially on hills, is by far the strongest option. You are supposed to build a small empire - but as we saw in this game, gigantic empires of filler cities look to be much stronger. Different aspects of the game design break other aspects, and the sum total of the whole turns into a giant mess. Throw in the atrociously bad combat AI, and you have a game that's not working anything like it's intended.

 

[Dale]

This is not General Discussion. This is Modding section.

Are you saying that I of all people have no right to post in the modding section? I find that amusing.

But if that's how you want it, I will not post anymore in CFC's modding section. I'm sure many people here would appreciate that.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Are you saying that I of all people have no right to post in the modding section? I find that amusing.

But if that's how you want it, I will not post anymore in CFC's modding section. I'm sure many people here would appreciate that.

I'm not saying any of that.

I'm only asking you to take under consideration that in Modding section it is normal to find people who want to change the game, and therefore attacking them for disliking some features is out of place. Especially if instead of pointless whining they want to discuss possible improvements.

As for the tips on what is wrong I can redirect all interested to the RB3 SG thread, pages 16 onwards - it contains very interesting ideas.

 

[Dale]

I'm not saying any of that.

I'm only asking you to take under consideration that in Modding section it is normal to find people who want to change the game, and therefore attacking them for disliking some features is out of place. Especially if instead of pointless whining they want to discuss possible improvements.

Show me where in this thread I attacked someone? You can't. You would also notice if you read my first post in this thread, that I was stating that the only mod Sulla would want (in my opinion), is a conversion of Civ5 to Civ4 mod.

Besides, most of Sulla's complaints centre on the use of exploits and then pointing the finger at the game and stating it's broken. I have proposed playing the game as intended, instead of using exploits (which everyone knows about already) and then complaining the whole game is broken. Try the game as intended and yes there's problems, but it's actually a bit fun to play too.

As I've said already in this thread, I could show you a method to get 75 cities in 150 turns and have positive happiness, but will I? No, I prefer to play the game without resorting to exploits, and lo and behold, I was having fun doing that. All the whilst knowing about the exploits, just not using them.

 

[Slowpoke]

To the OP: Honestly I suggest dropping this thread. As someone said earlier, This is not General Discussion. This is Modding section. And I honestly haven't seen any modding stuff whatsoever in this thread.

 

[Kruelgor]

I'll be completely honest.

Civ 5 is a decent game in its current state with the potential of being much better, and I'm confident that future patches will certainly make it much better. It's an ambitious piece of software with some obvious holes of unfinished work.

However, here lies the true source of the problem in my opinion, with all due respect to Jon Shafer, I find Civ 5's poor reputation not a surprise considering Jon's age and lack of experience with PC war gaming in general. In my humble opinion, there are some of us who have been PC war gaming for 20, 25, 30 years and would have made a much better game designer. I've always felt that these game designer companies put too much emphasis on hiring someone who can program than they do in hiring someone who is rich in knowledge with military history and vast experience with pc war gaming. The way I see it, the programmers and graphic artists should be more like ink and paper while the lead designer should be more like the author of a masterpiece.

Final conclusion, Firaxis needs to employ a master war gamer to be the lead designer, not a coder.

 

[Afforess]

I'll be completely honest.

Civ 5 is a decent game in its current state with the potential of being much better, and I'm confident that future patches will certainly make it much better. It's an ambitious piece of software with some obvious holes of unfinished work.

However, here lies the true source of the problem in my opinion, with all due respect to Jon Shafer, I find Civ 5's poor reputation not a surprise considering Jon's age and lack of experience with PC war gaming in general. In my humble opinion, there are some of us who have been PC war gaming for 20, 25, 30 years and would have made a much better game designer. I've always felt that these game designer companies put too much emphasis on hiring someone who can program than they do in hiring someone who is rich in knowledge with military history and vast experience with pc war gaming. The way I see it, the programmers and graphic artists should be more like ink and paper while the lead designer should be more like the author of a masterpiece.

Final conclusion, Firaxis needs to employ a master war gamer to be the lead designer, not a coder.

That's what they did for Civ4. Soren Johnsen (the lead dev for Civ4) did not do a whole lot of programming. He had a History Degree, with a Computer Science Masters, and had a fair amount of experience. And the game was phenomenal.

Now, I know a lot of apologists (read: people who don't want to admit that they wasted 50+ USD) are saying "Well Civ4 initially wasn't good/fun". Frankly, if you have to be negative about OTHER games to make Civ5 look good, you're doing it wrong. If bringing the gaming world down to Civ5's level is the only way Civ5 can compete with it, then something is very very wrong.

 

[kuukkeli]

Besides, most of Sulla's complaints centre on the use of exploits and then pointing the finger at the game and stating it's broken.

Could you tell what exactly you believe to be an exploit in his game reports because I'm seeing hardly any?

City States were one of the major new features in Civ5 so using that feature without resorting to any glitches can't be an exploit. Using half a dozen Social Policies is hardly an exploit either. Building few early buildings in each city or building settlers isn't either. Selling resources to AI is close to only diplomatic option left so using it must be okay. I honestly don't see anything I'd consider an exploit.

Besides those his complaints seem mostly the same as they're for many others - poor AI, poor balance, lack of meaningful decisions and tedious micro management with units and citizens. I find much more exploit in people turning majority of criticism into "they just wanted Civ4.5" and "they're just opposing change" straw men.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's what they did for Civ4. Soren Johnsen (the lead dev for Civ4) did not do a whole lot of programming. He had a History Degree, with a Computer Science Masters, and had a fair amount of experience. And the game was phenomenal.

Interestingly, that really seems to show that Soren and Shafer's backgrounds were relatively similar (I think Shafer was a history minor and computer science major).

That being said, the historicalness of Civ4 continues to surprise me. It was only about a month ago that I found out late Medieval economies would rely on outsourcing textile production to the countryside. This method was known as the Cottage system. I just assumed it represented suburban sprawl. It's actually much more interesting than that.

 

[Sonereal]

Interestingly, that really seems to show that Soren and Shafer's backgrounds were relatively similar (I think Shafer was a history minor and computer science major).

That being said, the historicalness of Civ4 continues to surprise me. It was only about a month ago that I found out late Medieval economies would rely on outsourcing textile production to the countryside. This method was known as the Cottage system. I just assumed it represented suburban sprawl. It's actually much more interesting than that.

I thought that was pretty cool. The "cottage industry" was the industry until factories starting booming. Too bad cottages didn't simply upgrade to towns (or properly named Suburbs).