Is Civ5 really more simple than Civ4?

[larrym]

I'm taking a wait and see attitude, not getting too worried about the possible negatives while not getting too excited about the possible positives. I am excited about the modifications to city size - not just the larger radius per se, but the other changes - because frankly almost 20 years and roughly 7 different games with the same 21 square city radius was getting a bit old. But really I think a LOT is going to depend upon the policies system – if that is deep and forces REAL choices, I think we’re going to be very happy.

My perspective may be different than some people’s though – I’ve been there since the original Civ, am getting a little burned out on the basic concept, as wonderful as it is, and am really looking for a game that breaks the mold, at least as little.

 

[Commander Bello]

Techs in civ because they had tech trading in mind, offer very little new stuff per tech. And with tech trading off you have to be extremely careful which techs you research in the beginning of the game, because you can't trade, you need to get economics techs so you don't die horribly, and later have to get military asap or you die, it dont work well.

So, if you have to be careful about your decisions, that makes a certain game option suddenly unbalanced?

 

[Schuesseled]

So, if you have to be careful about your decisions, that makes a certain game option suddenly unbalanced?

my point was that the game was designed to have tech trading, including an option to disable tech trading isn't the same as designing a game to have a lack of techtrading. and has drastically different effects.

 

[Grey2ham]

-snip-
Again, just to be clear, I am not saying the social policies are bad or don't offer choices, they actually seem like a fine replacement for civics on a domestic scale (I'm unsure about the changes in culture, but just as a comparison to civics, it's probably fine). I certainly can agree civ4 could use more or interesting civics, said so before and also see below. What I've said, is that they appear to have eliminated any relation social policies will have towards diplomacy, possibly excepting city states if city states are important enough for that to matter. Considering from even early civ versions players would even consider whether they wanted to be a "democracy" or "dictatorship" and how this affects foreign relations, if there is actually nothing at all in that department, I'd be disappointed.
-snip-

Where does it say that social policy choices will/will not effect diplomacy. I've seen brief overviews of social policy but no information on how they factor in to diplomacy.

In my mind I would like to think that these choices will influence diplomacy. If Napolean is running a tyranical supressed state I'd expect liberty and fredom loving Washington to be wary of him.

 

[Aramel]

So, if you have to be careful about your decisions, that makes a certain game option suddenly unbalanced?

This isn't even an argument, you are just ignoring what Schuesseled has said and refusing to admit you are wrong.

 

[Aramel]

Where does it say that social policy choices will/will not effect diplomacy. I've seen brief overviews of social policy but no information on how they factor in to diplomacy.

In my mind I would like to think that these choices will influence diplomacy. If Napolean is running a tyranical supressed state I'd expect liberty and fredom loving Washington to be wary of him.

It was a quote from one of the designers. I think they want to move away from systems where diplomacy is affected without any rational in-game reason, like with religion in Civ4.

 

[Louis XXIV]

This is a false-gameplay hyped thing though. All they did was permanently turn tech trading off for Civ 5. You can do the same thing in Civ 3 and 4 as an option. They shouldn't even advertise this as a feature (tech trade is out IIRC).

This is another extension of the overarching belief of going too far in gameplay > realism. Because in reality countries can share technology. In fact, the sharing of technology is a very common practice since the beginning of time. And gameplay doesn't really gain anything from deleting tech trading. It just removes the number of options available to the player; thus streamlining the game into a more linear fashion.

The advantages are: it makes you think ahead about what to research. Well, with Tech trading, you thought ahead also, so nothing new.
Other advantage: makes game more linear, taking the occasional traded tech out. Yup, that's what it does.

Now, instead of having the option to research a different tech to try to get ahead through trading, you must research your own techs, with no diplomacy trading to fall back on. 1 tech at a time. Diplomacy was somewhat boring before, now you can't tech trade?

I'd argue this is more realistic instead of less. The vast majority of technologies were learned through experience of other sides, not directly trading one idea for another. And it's not the same as simply having tech trading removed. They added research alliances that will allow friendly sides to boost each other's research (which seems to fit the trend of learning through experience of the other side better).

 

[AlpsStranger]

my point was that the game was designed to have tech trading, including an option to disable tech trading isn't the same as designing a game to have a lack of techtrading. and has drastically different effects.

This is actually a crucial point. It is easy to overlook it, but tech design would probably be influenced quite a lot by such things.

While I love modders as much as the next guy, this sort of thing is often overlooked in mod-heavy communities. A professionally developed game, balanced from the ground up with Feature X as the default, is a far different animal than a hack that simply enables Feature X.

 

[JonoLith]

I think there needs to be a distinction between "Simple" and "Transparent".

I don't believe for a moment that the systems that will be in place in Civilization 5 will be "Simple." There will be alot of interaction going on, and alot of factors that will affect decision making on every level. The simple fact that roads cost maintenance tells me that I will need to make decisions that effect my entire empire.

However, where I feel Civilization 5 will be incredibly strong is in the Transparency of it's systems. Civilization 4 had quite alot of vagueness in it, which some might call "Complexity." For example; the Trade Route system was largely opaque, and took a bit of investigation into these very forums to discover how they worked at all. Once I did, I learned that they were something that basically just existed, and I could have almost no impact on them whatsoever. This makes streamlining my own economy much more difficult, because I simply cannot rely on Trade Routes to be a significant part of my economy.

Civilization 5 seems to be going in a direction where the player will always know exactly where every scrap of resource, be it gold, science, or culture, is coming from. The Developers can do that, because they've created a "Simpler" system that doesn't involve sliders and percentage bars, and so on, but rather relies on raw numbers and data. This will allow the player to more easily manage their empire, but will certainly not create a game that will be simple. I suspect multiple complexities to arise simply through basic interaction with other civilizations.

In short; Just because a system is simple to use, through it's transparency, doesn't mean it won't be complex.

 

[PieceOfMind]

This is actually a crucial point. It is easy to overlook it, but tech design would probably be influenced quite a lot by such things.

While I love modders as much as the next guy, this sort of thing is often overlooked in mod-heavy communities. A professionally developed game, balanced from the ground up with Feature X as the default, is a far different animal than a hack that simply enables Feature X.

It's not overlooked in PIG Mod. I'm pretty sure Afforess would have something to say to that as well, if he was reading.

 

[Earthling]

It was a quote from one of the designers. I think they want to move away from systems where diplomacy is affected without any rational in-game reason, like with religion in Civ4.

Yes, I believe it was implied that social policies could affect relations with city states, but will not affect other civs.

Again, I'm just saying that being a "democracy" or "dictatorship" and all the various possibilities out there since have been part of the civ series for a long time. Letting that have zero influence on foreign affairs - I hope it isn't the case.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Let's put it this way. If the AI was a democracy and you were a democracy, would you favor them over a dictatorship? I personally wouldn't care, all things being equal.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It's not overlooked in PIG Mod. I'm pretty sure Afforess would have something to say to that as well, if he was reading.

I haven't played PIG mod so... I really can't comment. Hell, I'm bored, maybe I'll your mod this afternoon.

EDIT: Browsing the feature list I already like the Praetorian change. They *are* more than a little silly in the unmodded game.

 

[tom2050]

Where does it say that social policy choices will/will not effect diplomacy. I've seen brief overviews of social policy but no information on how they factor in to diplomacy.

In my mind I would like to think that these choices will influence diplomacy. If Napolean is running a tyranical supressed state I'd expect liberty and fredom loving Washington to be wary of him.

They may have an adverse or positive effect on diplomacy.. but unfortunately diplomacy is going to basically be the same old stuff (iron for gold). A new leader graphic IMO doesn't count for anything new, since it's irrelevant to gameplay and will probably be annoying to watch after the 1st time. There's not much to have change for diplomacy.

I'd argue this is more realistic instead of less. The vast majority of technologies were learned through experience of other sides, not directly trading one idea for another. And it's not the same as simply having tech trading removed. They added research alliances that will allow friendly sides to boost each other's research (which seems to fit the trend of learning through experience of the other side better).

You'd argue that throughout the history of mankind, teaching others has never occured in between nations? Trading tech is an abstracted way of dealing with it, it's not a literal (as nothing in the game is).

Okay, so now that Civ 5 has no tech trading... now we can add tech trading to the list of Civilization Horrible Things: tech trading, stacks, unit counts, and something else ridiculous.

-----------------

I've never heard a complaint on tech trading before. Now suddenly (and magically), tech trading is some horrible thing that is unrealistic and just a horrible feature (because Civ 5 does not have it).

If Civ 5 did have tech trading, tech trading wouldn't be the horrible feature though, it would still be great (for some reason)

 

[Aramel]

You'd argue that throughout the history of mankind, teaching others has never occured in between nations? Trading tech is an abstracted way of dealing with it, it's not a literal (as nothing in the game is).

Yes, trading tech was an abstracted way of dealing with it. It was also a terrible way of dealing with it. Research treaties are a much better way of dealing with it.

Okay, so now that Civ 5 has no tech trading... now we can add tech trading to the list of Civilization Horrible Things: tech trading, stacks, unit counts, and something else ridiculous.

-----------------

I've never heard a complaint on tech trading before. Now suddenly (and magically), tech trading is some horrible thing that is unrealistic and just a horrible feature (because Civ 5 does not have it).

There were plenty of complaints about tech trading. The fact that you failed to notice them does not mean they did not exist.

If Civ 5 did have tech trading, tech trading wouldn't be the horrible feature though, it would still be great (for some reason)

You are confusing that with "if Civ 4 didn't have tech trading and Civ 5 did, tech trading would be an abomination that would ruin the game with its terribleness."

 

[tom2050]

Sorry, if Civ 5 did not have Research Treaties, but had an improved tech trading; then none of the current talk of 'The horrible tech trading' would exist.

Of course, anyone can say there has been complaints about every aspect of the game, because I'm sure there has, but tech trading is not something that has had anything coming even remotely close to an outrage or anything of the sort. Any mass email campaigns to get tech trading out of the game? Any massive polls and ongoing (to this day) attempts to eliminate the Horrid and absolute disgusting tech trading?

Nope.. you are trying to make w/e point you have look like it's something that has been around for a while.

In reality, it does not exist in any real form. Just like with sliders; sure some complaints here and there, nothing that really matters. I'm sure PG had similar complaints about 1upt.

I'm adding up all the items into the 'Fellowship of the Civ Horribles'. Maybe I'll make a trilogy of it. The plot is: Everything that Civ 5 changes; the fellowship then views it as the absolute and only best thing, and everything else just sucks and is horrible.

 

[bjbrains]

Sorry, if Civ 5 did not have Research Treaties, but had an improved tech trading; then none of the current talk of 'The horrible tech trading' would exist.

Of course, anyone can say there has been complaints about every aspect of the game, because I'm sure there has, but tech trading is not something that has had anything coming even remotely close to an outrage or anything of the sort. Any mass email campaigns to get tech trading out of the game? Any massive polls and ongoing (to this day) attempts to eliminate the Horrid and absolute disgusting tech trading?

Nope.. you are trying to make w/e point you have look like it's something that has been around for a while.

In reality, it does not exist in any real form. Just like with sliders; sure some complaints here and there, nothing that really matters. I'm sure PG had similar complaints about 1upt.

I'm adding up all the items into the 'Fellowship of the Civ Horribles'. Maybe I'll make a trilogy of it. The plot is: Everything that Civ 5 changes; the fellowship then views it as the absolute and only best thing, and everything else just sucks and is horrible.

Stop trying to dismiss points about the flaws in civ 4 (Which does *NOT* mean that anyone is calling them horrible) as some kind of attack on it. No game is perfect, and no system is perfect. There have been plenty of complaints about tech trading (and even moreso with tech brokering) throughout Civ 4's history. It doesn't mean we're trying to say it's "terrible", just that it's a flawed system.

 

[Calouste]

Yes, I believe it was implied that social policies could affect relations with city states, but will not affect other civs.

Again, I'm just saying that being a "democracy" or "dictatorship" and all the various possibilities out there since have been part of the civ series for a long time. Letting that have zero influence on foreign affairs - I hope it isn't the case.

The designers have stated that the AI will be more influenced by the player's behavior rather than any specific statusses or policies or governement types. Things like number and type of units build, stationing units close to the border, probably also willingness to research and trade. Because let's face it, despite all the moaning about Katherine, the player was always the worst backstabber of all in Civ4, and the only one to whom no diplomatic rules applied at all.

 

[Commander Bello]

Stop trying to dismiss points about the flaws in civ 4 (Which does *NOT* mean that anyone is calling them horrible) as some kind of attack on it. No game is perfect, and no system is perfect. There have been plenty of complaints about tech trading (and even moreso with tech brokering) throughout Civ 4's history. It doesn't mean we're trying to say it's "terrible", just that it's a flawed system.

Well, if tech trading would have been a flawed system, in which way would research treaties be better?

As far as I see it, the one would be as "flawed" as the other.

 

[Aramel]

The plot is: Everything that Civ 5 changes was in Civ 4, the fellowship then views it as the absolute and only best thing, and everything else just sucks and is horrible.

Fixed this for you.