I'm SoonerJBD, and I am addicted to the early game

[SoonerJBD]

The point about science is a good one. I finally played as Babylon, and holy crap. It makes any VC way easier. I think the focus should be on trade. In the real world, that is what keeps lesser developed nations from being way behind technologically. Being technologically advanced gives you economic advantages, but you can't keep most technology from spreading. The Internet doesn't even work if it's secret.

Maybe there should be certain secret military techs like stealth or nukes or gunpowder that stay secret for a set number of turns. Plus more economic advantages. Discounts on building the infrastructure. That is where lesser developed nations struggle in real life.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

If you're playing Civ V, god help you if you don't find Ancient era addictive.

 

[Matthew.]

And that's the first of 5 AI that I'll have to grind through. It will be epic, it will be successful, and it will be tedious to the point that I simply don't want to do it.

Yep. Another reason I don't like 1UPT. It isn't so bad in early game, but in late game when you have a ton of land units, air units, and naval units, it can often be tedious to the point where I'd rather just quit the game.

how to make the game less boring in the late phase, some ideas:
- in a domination victory, i think weaker AIs should resign after the alpha dogs were crushed. also the vassalage mechanic from civ4 could be revived so you did not have to conquer weak civs but subjugate them diplomatically

I don't know about everyone resigning as that sounds like it could potentially be anti-climatic and unsatisfying. For example look at how the AI is coded in peace deals... it is not uncommon to win a small skirmish and they give you every city they own other than capital...

I do like the idea of vassals and/or weaker nations joining together. It also kind of simulates the shifting and changing of empires throughout history.

- expansion should give benefits on every game stage not just pre-medieval. its expansion which makes early game such entertaining. later in the game new cities should start with free buildings and population, and resources should be more valuable. now its too easy to get the needed resources or luxes buying them from other civs or with cs. late game happines should be an issue too.

I agree, but along with your following bullet, I just think that later settled cities should have most of the previous era buildings already finished. Like why am I building a colloseum in a city settled in 1932? Nor does it add any enjoyment to the game.

More on that point and also a bit related to your following bullet: I do think it would be interesting if there were additional layers of empire management added as the game continued on. A bit similar how world council is added later in the game, though a bit more depth and interesting rather than just simply clicking an option and checking to see if you have enough CS allies to vote it in.

 

[Illianor123]

My theory is that cities should start with 1 pop for every two eras you've progressed through, and start with all the buildings you've built the national college for (and maybe are in the era after it?).

 

[The Disciple]

In the Modern Era, are you setting your military units to Alert <A>, Do Nothing <Spacebar>, or Fortify <F>? Fortified units are better when you have a known enemy presence. The unit will not prompt you for new orders every turn. That way you command only the units which actually need orders. Makes things much faster.

Also, with your cities, create production ques and end them with research/wealth. Means less micromanagement. Or better still, leave them as puppets and let them do their own thing.

I actually quite like Industrial and Modern Era combat. it tends to be much more dynamic and has its own flavour. Tanks are a bit more mobile than mounted units, and infantry are much more robust. Things do get a bit static with Artillery. But, when bombers and rocketry come on scene all this changes. Things get much more mobile in the Modern Era.

Many of the mechanics of Ancient Era combat are still relevant in the Industrial Era. Such as using Melee AoI to protect ranged units. So instead of Swordsmen and Archers, it is Infantry and Artillery. Tanks function much like Cavalry, and AT guns are your new Pike/Spearmen.

For me, not much happens in the Ancient Era. My first foray into combat usually happens with Musket and Cannon, in the Renaissance Era. My economy blooms in the Industrial Era and this is when my plans for world domination come into fruition. By the Modern Era, I have advanced from 6th place to 2nd or 1st, and this is when I strike with finishing blows.

In modern combat, the total conquest of entire regions can be very dynamic. You have to think like Alexander the Great. With the "Hammer and Anvil". Technique. Your Anvil is your static standing army. Consisting of Infantry, Artillery, AT, and AA guns as required. When your Anvil is properly set, and fortified of defensible ground, it is hard to dislodge, and impossible to assault without heavy losses.

Your Hammer is your mobile force, consisting of Tanks, Paratroopers, Bombers, and Helicopters. As always, you take up the front, and choose the best ground with your "Anvil", and let the enemy forces come to you. Then you use your "Hammer" to strike killing blows when the enemy is weakened. Or manoeuvre to create entrapment scenarios, between the "Hammer" and "Anvil". Or use it to take an objective (such as a city) while the enemy force is engaged with your "Anvil". Once you get good at Modern combat, you will enjoy it.

 

[killmeplease]

The point about science is a good one. I finally played as Babylon, and holy crap. It makes any VC way easier. I think the focus should be on trade. In the real world, that is what keeps lesser developed nations from being way behind technologically. Being technologically advanced gives you economic advantages, but you can't keep most technology from spreading. The Internet doesn't even work if it's secret.

Maybe there should be certain secret military techs like stealth or nukes or gunpowder that stay secret for a set number of turns. Plus more economic advantages. Discounts on building the infrastructure. That is where lesser developed nations struggle in real life.

interesting idea about tech types
maybe there should be general techs like wheel or combutsion which would spread to every nation pretty fast through some tech-diffusion mechanic, but also applied techs like chariotry or armor warfare which should be hard-teched by every civ if it wants to use advanced units or buildings.

about trade it could be a pretty easy fix - invert the current mechanic and make routes to backwards civs much more profitable (cheap labour, large new market etc) than to advanced ones, and make them give some substantial amount of hammers and beakers to the target civ. incoming routes could also be limited so top civs had to fight for markets, through wars or diplomacy (trade monopoly agreements etc).

I don't know about everyone resigning as that sounds like it could potentially be anti-climatic and unsatisfying. For example look at how the AI is coded in peace deals... it is not uncommon to win a small skirmish and they give you every city they own other than capital...

hmm didnt see that happening since bnw
i also think it should be easier for the AI to conduct diplomacy and evaluate its current position if agents were clustered in some bigger entites.

I actually quite like Industrial and Modern Era combat. it tends to be much more dynamic and has its own flavour.

its the problem not with combat but with number of units and cities to conquer. its fun at first but gets boring after 4-5th city.

 

[kaltorak]

Am I the only one who starts games, gets to the modern age, and as victory gets in sight, gets bored and starts over? I just love the early game so much. I'm not saying the late game isn't fun, but for me the joy is in sowing the seeds and watching them grow. I get bored eating the finished vegetables.

I'm the same. I love early game, I like mid game, I dislike lategame.

As for ideas, I'd like the unit costs to grow much more exponential. And maybe to compensate, make them also more powerful.
Same as I war with 3 swordman, 4 archers and 2 catapluts (for example), I'd like to war with 5 riflemen, 2 tanks, 2 canyons, and 3 planes. Maybe some more, but not with 50 units.

 

[SoonerJBD]

Building on the ideas for technology, there should be techs that are essentially worldwide, where all nations contribute their scientific output and it is discovered when the collective research is enough, similar to how the world council projects work with hammers. Also similar to the world projects is that Civs who contribute more research should be able to build the resulting buildings and units more cheaply and reap some economic benefit as well. Then you could have special secret techs that you'd have to research by yourself. Getting it first would get you a free unit or units. Those should be very limited. Stealth can stay secret for a while, but rocketry does not.

If you look at what limits real nations that lag in technology, it is the cost. They understand how to make mechanized infantry, but it is cheaper to send guys out with rifles, and they can't afford to build nice armored personnel carriers.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm also one of those who like early and mid game, but frequently skip late game. For me, there are two reasons:
1) Not enough stuff to do in late game.
2) AI sucks at late-game.


With regards to #1, I definitely feel we need some mechanism á la (but not necessarily identical to) Civ4 Corporations. Civ5 did well with religion, customizing and spreading your religion is an important and fun part of early game, we need something similar for the economic aspect of the game for late game.

I had an idea way back which I still think would work: That the "old" luxury resources should gradually lose value and instead you should use your factories and other production buildings to produce new resources and items that would create happiness and which you could trade. This would put more emphasis on resource management and give meaning to late-game expansion: There should be a whole range of late-game bonus resources that only become visible in later game, which you would need to put to work in your factories (a bit like how you put great works into cultural buildings) to give you your new products. This could be plants/animal resources or mineral resources (like transition metals, metalloids, rare earth elements, minerals).


With regards to #2, I feel on difficulty levels up to and including Emperor, the AI really falls behind once you get to Modern era, which makes it rather boring. When I occasionally play on Immortal level the AI does give me a lot more competition which means I have to DoW someone to keep them from winning which makes it a bit more exciting. I think one thing that could be done to help AI perform better in late game is to make civs more prone to form coalitions where smaller civs recognize that they can't win but line up with a large civ based on diplomatic parameters. Even if a civ has no chance at winning it can meaningfully play for survival and optimizing its empire all the while it backs another civ in the World Congress etc. That would make the diplomatic game more meaningful.

 

[Illianor123]

Some people in this thread don't seem to be aware that there already exists in the game a tech discount for erase arching techs that have already been discovered by other nation (the more nations that have it, the greater the discount), onto to which you can add a further large discount from the world congress..

I found the introduction of ideologies helped, though they could drive more conflict, but having more meaningful choices in the late game about trade and stances on issues would be nice. Having a reason to found cities post medieval would also be good.

 

[SoonerJBD]

Yes, it is easier to research techs that other Civs already have, but it is still possible for one or more Civs to fall way behind to an unrealistic degree in the mid and late game. It's not unrealistic for a Civ to fall behind in the ancient and classical eras. That obviously holds true historically. But by the time you hit the modern era, that really is no longer the case. Again, the reason is because of trade. The differences between more advanced and less advanced nations in the modern era and later should be primarily about economics and production, not technology. Lesser developed nations aren't ignorant about technology, they just lack the financial resources and infrastructure to widely implement it. This is why leading technologically in the late game should carry discounts or even grant free buildings or units rather than give you exclusive use of the technology for any number of turns. This would more accurately reflect the real world. Someone mentioned that cities founded in the later parts of the game should potentially get any buildings you have built the collective wonder for, National College granting libraries, for example. This would give more of a reason the expand later in the game.

 

[Acken]

You need a reason to continue.

Some play to the end because they want to know how fast a win that is. This works very well for somewhat competitive plays like GotM.

Some play to simply see if they will manage to win and will increase the difficulty level to get that required challenge.

Playing faster also help finishing games. If a complete game takes someone 25hours I can see the struggle to grind through the last turns. My complete games take between 5 and 7hours. That really helps finishing them !

It's also worth noting that the early game is necessarily the most interesting because you basically build everything up. The second part of the game on the other hand is a lot more on rails.

Finally, after a long time playing the base game I have a hard time motivating myself playing a normal game to the end and therefore went with mods.

 

[killmeplease]

Some play to the end because they want to know how fast a win that is. This works very well for somewhat competitive plays like GotM.

Some play to simply see if they will manage to win and will increase the difficulty level to get that required challenge.

I believe most people play because its fun, and when it becomes boring they stop. Knowledge of how fast you can do boring things is a very rare motivation i think.

Some people in this thread don't seem to be aware that there already exists in the game a tech discount for erase arching techs that have already been discovered by other nation (the more nations that have it, the greater the discount), onto to which you can add a further large discount from the world congress..

its a maximum of 50% discount, really about 10-20%, whereas the tech leader may have several times more of a science output, and orders of magnitude more in case of resurrected civs or those crippled by war.

in game design theres a term called "rubber band", for mechanics that allow backwards players not to fall too far behind, what adds to enjoyment. such rubber bands are almost non existent in civ.

 

[Primacide]

To the OP: whatever floats your boat, man! If you like building for a bit and then restarting, then just go on with your bad self. i think that the sandbox aspects to this game are something almost all players enjoy, but doesn't get much love on the forums. I play quite a few cooked maps or wild combinations of mods just for the early fun. It's cool to set up a Spain game with 50 natural wonders in it and play for 150 turns just to see what happens. I rarely finish those games, but I don't feel that my time is somehow less well spent just because I didn't pick and persue a victory condition. It's your free time: spend it enjoying yourself.

With respect to introducing random shifts in late-game dynamics and diplomacy, I would remind people that this has been tried in earlier civ titles and no one liked it. The complaint was that players spent all game engineering this great civ, only to have the board shift dramatically against the player in a seemingly random way. There is a great talk that Sid Meier gave (a keynote speech at the game developers conference in 2010) where he outlines this. They experimented with mechanics that would have the ai behave much differently in the late game if you were running away, and players hated it. The idea was to have your civ experience a rise-and-fall-and-rise again dynamic. Players hated it.

Ultimately, he says that they found that giving players a consistent choice between two positive outcomes drove player enjoyment. In other words, having players choose between planting another city or hunkering down to get the national college was much more enjoyable than giving the ai new ways to beat you. I think this is a very good way to look at game design: we aren't playing civ to master a skill, we are playing it to have fun. However, this does mean that your earliest fork in the road decisions will necessarily impact all subsequent decisions (do I open liberty or tradition or GASP! Piety?). This will, as acken succinctly put it, cause your mid and late game to be a little more on the rails.

BNW favors a smaller approach, and I'm fine with it. I've played every civ since the first, and believe me, I got plenty sick of infinite city sprawl and stacks of doom. I found civ v a nice change, and BNW really took the game to its potential. I'm not saying that v is perfect or that iv didn't have some good mechanics that I miss. However, I think that v has put some life back into the series. At the end of the day, though, remember that some of the ideas posted above have been tried, and many of them were wildly unpopular.

For those who'd like to read Sid meiers comments: http://venturebeat.com/2010/03/12/quotes-from-sid-meiers-keynote-gdc-speech/

 

[SoonerJBD]

I like the option of playing tall or wide. I like having options in general. One of the selling points about the Civilization series is the option to win in many different ways with many different play styles as long as you are smart strategically. I wouldn't suggest I have some magic solution for making the game perfect. But I can point out areas where I think improvements can be made.

I think it is fairly clear that tech is overpowered in the game. Trade is underpowered. Religion is a fun mechanic that offers some interesting bonuses, but on higher levels there is not enough of a benefit in trying to spread your religion across the world and make it dominant. The bonuses just aren't worth it. I think more could be done to make the late game more interesting, and it doesn't have to be new mechanics. When my culture starts becoming dominant in opposing Civs, looking at the map should give visual cues to this. Maybe they start renaming towns after my great people or something. Some sort of visual evidence of your efforts succeeding would be nice. Similarly, the launch of the spaceship is anticlimactic. I don't know if a cutscene would help, but some sort of payoff for the work you put in would be nice. Sale for being elected World Leader. Is it too much to ask to see the other Civ leaders kneeling in front of me after I win? Something like that.

 

[inthesomeday]

I've always felt that IV was a bit more historical in the way it played; IE, I felt more like I was constructing an actual history of a real world, moreso than in V at least. Unit stacking, the way the terrain worked, the tech path and the systems of commerce and civics, overall the mechanics of IV constructed a deeper feeling of immersion for me in terms of historicity.

I've always felt that one of the strengths that V has over IV is that it manages to make the game more fun; there is more of a feeling that V is actually a game based around gameplay and strategy than IV.

The way that warfare works in V, for example, is much more enjoyable than simply stacking units and smashing stacks into each other; troop movements, artillery positions, and the creation of defensive lines are things I find much more fun and enjoyable in the context of V combat vs. IV. However, the warfare in IV was much more realistic to history, especially considering the scale the games cover.

I've always felt that part of the reason IV's late game was so much fun is because, due to the feeling that surrounded it, the construction of a history in the universe, the late game felt like a culminating point and had far more at stake. This goes for more than just war; somewhere I think BNW improved on G&K/Vanilla is that the fun of V now expands into the industrial era with the introduction of ideologies. It adds more of a flavor and emotion to the game, much like the feeling of culmination present in the late game of IV. The problem is that V still has not managed to add the same amount of intrigue to the late game as IV did.

Overall, I think the development of V probably sacrificed a lot of historicity, like in the military or in the development of infrastructure and trade, all things that were much more present in IV, for the sake of playability. In the early eras, during the period of world building and game setup, the playability is felt more because the way it's set up is to have immediate payoff, self-contained with more focus on tactical play and compensation. However, this loses its luster in late game because the stakes are never nearly as high as they are in the early game.

Of course this isn't to say that the playability gained isn't worth the historicity lost. It just trades some of the fun in the late game of IV for more fun in the early game, somewhere IV debatably was lacking.

This all is speaking specifically about single player. For multiplayer play, the focus on tactical pursuits over grand strategy is a large improvement, as multiplayer games are rarely pursued for historicity rather than playability. V seems to cater more to multiplayer than single player, the opposite of IV.

 

[danaphanous]

one issue I have late-game too is it is just a massive queue of new buildings which results in click-click-click next turn.

I don't know a better way to do it but the way civ V does buildings is totally unrealistic. If I choose the go several wonders I inevitably get way behind on my buildings. It's always mad-catch up. In real history most civs didn't take hundreds of years to complete a granary. That may be because I'm not abusing the buy buildings with gold mechanic but personally I don't have the gold to do it in any more than 3 cities unless I'm venice or some OP gold monster civ. It just seems tedious and unrealistic that buildings take so many years.

I would prefer buildings being cheaper so you can conceivably keep a lot of cities at current living standards like real history. But maybe to offset the cheaper costs they start very weak and require upgrades for later eras. For instance, the first library adds only 1 science per 4 citizens. In renaissance you can build an upgrade for it to drop it to 3, etc. Granary is only +1 food but can be upgraded later as tech advances. This means you can keep up with the buildings and they don't take so long but don't get OP from it either and adds in the realistic effect that such industries need to be improved/replaced later in history instead of the same ancient library sitting there through the years. Just a thought I had to balance this aspect. I'm fine with military taking a while to raise though I do miss the draft feature of Civ 3 as I thought that was realistic.

 

[PreLynMax]

I'm Max, and I am addicted to the mid-late game.

 

[kaspergm]

one issue I have late-game too is it is just a massive queue of new buildings which results in click-click-click next turn.

I don't know a better way to do it but the way civ V does buildings is totally unrealistic. If I choose the go several wonders I inevitably get way behind on my buildings. It's always mad-catch up. In real history most civs didn't take hundreds of years to complete a granary. That may be because I'm not abusing the buy buildings with gold mechanic but personally I don't have the gold to do it in any more than 3 cities unless I'm venice or some OP gold monster civ. It just seems tedious and unrealistic that buildings take so many years.

I would prefer buildings being cheaper so you can conceivably keep a lot of cities at current living standards like real history. But maybe to offset the cheaper costs they start very weak and require upgrades for later eras. For instance, the first library adds only 1 science per 4 citizens. In renaissance you can build an upgrade for it to drop it to 3, etc. Granary is only +1 food but can be upgraded later as tech advances. This means you can keep up with the buildings and they don't take so long but don't get OP from it either and adds in the realistic effect that such industries need to be improved/replaced later in history instead of the same ancient library sitting there through the years. Just a thought I had to balance this aspect. I'm fine with military taking a while to raise though I do miss the draft feature of Civ 3 as I thought that was realistic.

I can follow your reasoning from a realism point of view, but I think such an approach would be very bad game design. The whole point of the current design is the idea of opportunity costs - it takes 20 turns to build a Granary which means in those 20 turns you *can't* build a Library, a Swordsman, or whatever else you would do. If building a Granary only took 2 turns, it would be a much smaller investment to go for the Granary which would make decision-making less important in game. In order to alleviate this problem you'd need to have many more buildings, which would be a hell to manage and reduce the fun in game. If you don't increase the number of buildings correspondingly you'll instead give the player much more time to produce military units, which will basically leave the map swarmed in military units which will not help game either.

 

[killmeplease]

you'd need to have many more buildings, which would be a hell to manage and reduce the fun in game.

many people like building hell
imho the problem of civ5 is that you need most buildings everywhere.
granary, monument, aqueduct, science and production buildings are mandatory
in the earlier civs cities were more diverse in their needs