Simplified game?

[quarryman]

So I've been playing Civ for years and currently enjoying BNW.

What I've found lately is that the number of game concepts and features is actually a bit too much. I have city-states complaining, babrbarians to handle, trade requests, religion, tourism etc etc. Every turn seems to involve some level of micro-management and I get bogged down in decision making?

What I'm considering is a stripped down game with simplified rules and victory conditions:

• No city states

They're good for gaining access to resources but I prefer the old school method of building a city near em.

• No barbarians

-
These guys are just more trouble than they're worth

• Victorys

Get rid of score, diplomatic and science.
Score is an arbitrary way of determining the winner which I don't like and caps the time at which the game will end.
Diplomatic, I just have no interest in at the moment
Science will purely be used to gain access to techs. I prefer this to the space race.

Pangaea, 5 Civs, King difficulty, Standard map size


What I want to know is; will I be ruining the flow of the game considering these game concepts were added to "improve" the gameplay? It's just that I want a simpler game...

 

[kamex]

You are joking right!? Even with BNW Civ V is a very simple game. Its already been ruined by having concepts such as vassal states and public health stripped out. If you want something simpler maybe try playing Risk or something?

 

[Mudrac]

So I've been playing Civ for years and currently enjoying BNW.

What I've found lately is that the number of game concepts and features is actually a bit too much. I have city-states complaining, babrbarians to handle, trade requests, religion, tourism etc etc. Every turn seems to involve some level of micro-management and I get bogged down in decision making?

What I'm considering is a stripped down game with simplified rules and victory conditions:

• No city states

They're good for gaining access to resources but I prefer the old school method of building a city near em.

• No barbarians

-
These guys are just more trouble than they're worth

• Victorys

Get rid of score, diplomatic and science.
Score is an arbitrary way of determining the winner which I don't like and caps the time at which the game will end.
Diplomatic, I just have no interest in at the moment
Science will purely be used to gain access to techs. I prefer this to the space race.

Pangaea, 5 Civs, King difficulty, Standard map size


What I want to know is; will I be ruining the flow of the game considering these game concepts were added to "improve" the gameplay? It's just that I want a simpler game...

Civ 5 is the easiest civ game to grasp on. Besides, more concepts that just add to the variety in game is always a good thing IMO. Bah, now people want a simplified game and 3 years ago they were complaining how dumb down it was. Never will understand people

 

[Browd]

The victory condition changes are OK, if that's how you feel. Five civs on a standard pangaea, with no CSs and no barbs makes for a super lonely game IMO. Tons of empty space until late in the game, so it will be a looooong time before you start getting border friction. Large distances between civs also means international trade routes are going to come late, so more gold problems in the early game. Loss of CS meeting gold and gold from busting barb camps also means your start is going to be gold-starved. If you were to go this route, you might consider disabling BNW and rolling back to G&K, which has more gold on the map and the ability to do non-DOF lump-sum gold trades with the AI, as well as (moderately) less complex game mechanics.

 

[zukenft]

turn off the expansion DLC's, try playing vanilla first and go up from there. It is good practice to start with the basics.
a simpler game have the advantage of less exploits against the AI. therefore you'll end up a better player once you start playing more complex games.

 

[Walter R]

I'm sorry q but this is the craziest thing I've ever heard...play on Pangea?

Seriously, for me one of the many good things about CiV is the option to set it up how you want to play.

 

[quarryman]

Thanks for the quick replies:

You are joking right!?

Nope. Would seem like fair waste of time to start a thread if i was "joking".

Even with BNW Civ V is a very simple game.

I never said it was a difficult game. I just feel the sheer amount of game aspects is over-whelming and I want to trim it back without affecting the overall mechanics of the game. Seems a risk based on Browd's post below:

The victory condition changes are OK, if that's how you feel. Five civs on a standard pangaea, with no CSs and no barbs makes for a super lonely game IMO. Tons of empty space until late in the game, so it will be a looooong time before you start getting border friction. Large distances between civs also means international trade routes are going to come late, so more gold problems in the early game. Loss of CS meeting gold and gold from busting barb camps also means your start is going to be gold-starved. If you were to go this route, you might consider disabling BNW and rolling back to G&K, which has more gold on the map and the ability to do non-DOF lump-sum gold trades with the AI, as well as (moderately) less complex game mechanics.

Thanks I hadn't thought about all of those implications.

turn off the expansion DLC's, try playing vanilla first and go up from there. It is good practice to start with the basics.
a simpler game have the advantage of less exploits against the AI. therefore you'll end up a better player once you start playing more complex games.

That's a good idea. Am I losing any bug fixes or improvements by rolling back to the vanilla game?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think if you roll back to Vanilla you lose the unit HP system from G&K, so basically units will have (i think)10 HP instead of 100HP.

This makes combat a bit more difficult to manage, so I'd avoid that if possible

 

[kamex]

Thanks for the quick replies:



Nope. Would seem like fair waste of time to start a thread if i was "joking".



I never said it was a difficult game. I just feel the sheer amount of game aspects is over-whelming and I want to trim it back without affecting the overall mechanics of the game.

Altering anything in the custom settings is going to affect the mechanics of the game. Turning of various victory conditions which some civs have clearly been designed to pursue will obviously trash the already delicate balance. Turning off city states just because you haven't learnt how they work is a bad idea. Not only will you never learn about them by burying your head in the sand, you'll upset the strategies of the AIs which rely on them such as Alex.

The best thing you can do is keep everything switched on and play slowly. Theres no time limits in this game. Read every notification carefully and look up anything you don't understand the civlopedia. Consider playing with the advisor switched on to learn the game as you play.

 

[PhroX]

While it doesn't look that fun to me, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't try it. And if you enjoy it, great, that's all that really matters.

 

[VisageTDI]

What's exactly the point of this thread? You can do all the changes you listed yourself in Advanced start options. If you like it, go play simplified version of the game that way.

Or stand up to the challenge and learn to play properly.

 

[gothemasticator]

Altering anything in the custom settings is going to affect the mechanics of the game. Turning of various victory conditions which some civs have clearly been designed to pursue will obviously trash the already delicate balance. Turning off city states just because you haven't learnt how they work is a bad idea. Not only will you never learn about them by burying your head in the sand, you'll upset the strategies of the AIs which rely on them such as Alex.

The best thing you can do is keep everything switched on and play slowly. Theres no time limits in this game. Read every notification carefully and look up anything you don't understand the civlopedia. Consider playing with the advisor switched on to learn the game as you play.

That's a pretty mean-spirited reply. Your point about game balance is valuable and will probably help the OP make his decision, which is what he seems to be after. Everything else you wrote is insulting.

 

[quarryman]

Altering anything in the custom settings is going to affect the mechanics of the game. Turning of various victory conditions which some civs have clearly been designed to pursue will obviously trash the already delicate balance. Turning off city states just because you haven't learnt how they work is a bad idea. Not only will you never learn about them by burying your head in the sand, you'll upset the strategies of the AIs which rely on them such as Alex.

The best thing you can do is keep everything switched on and play slowly. Theres no time limits in this game. Read every notification carefully and look up anything you don't understand the civlopedia. Consider playing with the advisor switched on to learn the game as you play.

You're a little bit precious aren't you?

Where did I say I haven't learned how CSs work? Or is that just your assumption?

I asked my question, not to find out if changing the advanced options would affect the game - of course it will! What I'm trying to determine is if the changes I've suggested will affect it in a detrimental way.

To his credit, Browd has answered this somewhat. There's a few implications I need to consider. I might tweak further.

Feel free to continue your ranting though.

 

[njmfff]

What I'm considering is a stripped down game with simplified rules and victory conditions:
No city states
They're good for gaining access to resources but I prefer the old school method of building a city near em.
No barbarians
-
These guys are just more trouble than they're worth
Victorys
Get rid of score, diplomatic and science.

You can set number of City States to 0 on setup game. You can also turn off Barbarians there. You can also turn off diplomatic and science victory there.

I really don't understand why you are complaining, because it's all easily put\taken from the game from setup menu.

anyway, I agree that barbs can sometimes be too much (try playing Venice with raging barb, they'll be your biggest problem for a really long time ) but as other user point out, without them or CS, it would be a lonely game for a while. Barbs introduce bit of "action" until war with civs gets going around Medieval.

 

[quarryman]

You can set number of City States to 0 on setup game. You can also turn off Barbarians there. You can also turn off diplomatic and science victory there.

I really don't understand why you are complaining, because it's all easily put\taken from the game from setup menu.

eh, I know that. That wasn't what I asked.

anyway, I agree that barbs can sometimes be too much (try playing Venice with raging barb, they'll be your biggest problem for a really long time ) but as other user point out, without them or CS, it would be a lonely game for a while. Barbs introduce bit of "action" until war with civs gets going around Medieval.

They also keep the AI in check early game. Regardless I think I'd think I'd like to play a few games without them.

 

[Aenthin]

All the things you want could be edited out in the Advanced Setting before the games begin. Set your city states to zero, remove a couple of AI civs, check No Barbarians and uncheck Score, Science and Diplomatic Victories.

While I do agree with Browd, there is a way to get around gold starvation without CSes and Barbarians. It involves getting the right social policies, getting the right tech, and settling in the right locations and working on luxuries as soon as possible. Ironically, it still involves quite a bit of micromanagement as well, but the decision is all yours.

 

[quarryman]

All the things you want could be edited out in the Advanced Setting before the games begin. Set your city states to zero, remove a couple of AI civs, check No Barbarians and uncheck Score, Science and Diplomatic Victories.

I know that!

My whole intention is to switch these options off in the advanced menu...

 

[Aenthin]

Well, the only thing left to say is, just try it out. Pretty sure you could still run it, though the level of fun still depends on the player himself.

 

[CultureManiac]

It's not the way I'd prefer to play, but I'd be curious to hear what the OP felt after playing a few games under those parameters.

 

[Scarpa]

I wouldn't go less than 10 civs with those settings in BNW. As said above 5 is way too sparse of a map and with no way to get gold from barbs/CSes the early game will be no fun.