2K Greg's recent posts on the 2K forums

[Thormodr]

You might have missed it, but DLC is not MP compatible.
You can't play with Babylon in MP.
Not even the savegames (EVEN without Babylon) are compatible between Deluxe + normal version.

Can't believe i defended this, that i said "they'll make sure that this works". More disappointing is, that Gyathaar already wrote a skript for the savegame compatibility.
They screwed it, one of the biggest concerns of the community, AND it's obviously not rocket science, because someone who's not involved in the developement partially fixed it.
Epic computer engineering fail.



Ah, now, they can screw it up themselves, they don't need other components for that.

I thought it couldn't get any worse. Wow...

 

[Thormodr]

I have to completely disagree with this. Civ3 introduced culture and strategic resources and national gold support for armies amongst other things. It was the best Civ of its time by far. How people can think Civ3 is worse than Civ1 and 2 I'll never understand.

I guess I am just sentimental. I loved Civ I because I played it to death. That and Civ II.
Civ III is still a good game. The problem is that it's lined up against Civs I, II and the awesome IV. Pretty tough competition.

Anyway, it's not the worst now in my books. ciV took that over.

I loved colonies and great people in Civ III though.

 

[Zelig]

Well Civ4 wouldn't haven been possible without Civ3, functionally and practically as Soren built both and Civ4 took ALOT of mechanics from Civ3 and streamlined them (too much for my tastes). And yes Civ5 appears heavily influenced by Civ3 (but with worse out of the gate AI)

Civ3 to me has the right idea on how to handle AI. Pure sandlot. Give AI low level goals (expand, kill, destroy), add some higher level diplomatic rules and let them go at each other, form alliances and watch the world burn. Keep it simple. no corporations, no religion, no bells and whistles.

The problem I had with civ4 were the SMAC elements, that the AI superficially can handle but in reality is meant only for human consumption.

Religion is one. Ok AI can expand their religions, can benefit gpt from religious cities but honestly, if a AI converts to a religion that is the same as the human players, there's no real benefit to the AI vis a vis interactions with humans and no corresponding relationship bonus from the human side, but the AI is now less likely to attack, much to the human's delight. The same coutesy however is not extended to the AI.

So religion is largely a one way street. entirely manageable and exploitable by humans but something the AI can't handle.

This post is mostly correct, and it makes me sad, as both me and posters I respect generally regard civ3 as the worst game in the civ series, and civ4 and SMAC as the best.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I can agree with that. The war horns of civ4 were awesome to hear. Perhaps those of us feeling nostalgic will find a way to mod them in to replace whatever the sound is now? By the way, some of the sounds in civ5 remind me of the ones used in combat from Final Frontier (the mod for BtS), which happens to be Shafer's creation too. Maybe it's because of that that I can't help shake the sci-fi vibe they give me.

You can't beet the war horns when they go off for over a minute in RFC.

 

[Guardian_PL]

(...)
Well Civ4 wouldn't haven been possible without Civ3, functionally and practically as Soren built both and Civ4 took ALOT of mechanics from Civ3 and streamlined them (too much for my tastes). And yes Civ5 appears heavily influenced by Civ3 (but with worse out of the gate AI)

Civ3 to me has the right idea on how to handle AI. Pure sandlot. Give AI low level goals (expand, kill, destroy), add some higher level diplomatic rules and let them go at each other, form alliances and watch the world burn. Keep it simple. no corporations, no religion, no bells and whistles.

The problem I had with civ4 were the SMAC elements, that the AI superficially can handle but in reality is meant only for human consumption.

Religion is one. Ok AI can expand their religions, can benefit gpt from religious cities but honestly, if a AI converts to a religion that is the same as the human players, there's no real benefit to the AI vis a vis interactions with humans and no corresponding relationship bonus from the human side, but the AI is now less likely to attack, much to the human's delight. The same coutesy however is not extended to the AI.

So religion is largely a one way street. entirely manageable and exploitable by humans but something the AI can't handle.

I don't agree. Once the AI has the same religion as human it then often becomes a valuable ally (how many times human player could trade latest techs with only one AI on the landmass since other had different state religion and hated infidels?) and if I'm on a landmass or better yet Pangea with same religion Izzy and different religion Monty I know after whom I'll go first. Resource trading often is beneficial for the AI.
Yes, human player is the ultimate backstabber but hey, Monty can declare on +5 same faith share too, right? Also, if you declare on the same religion AI you get happiness penalty - not a grave danger but it's another tip for the player to take care of other AI's first and perhaps later try Free Religion or sth.

Lastly, it's not like the AI is helpless if it's of the same religion as human - it still pursues founding new religions, while lots of different AI will go spreading their faith across the globe and often previously friendly AI becomes Cautious, while human does the same cause he/she still hopes that through diplo/more missionary spread/espionage can sway said AI back to the same religion as before.

Many people didn't really get religions in Civ4 which imo is yet another example how beautifully complex that game is - you can play pretty much all your games without bothering about it, using different tools at your disposal or you can focus on that aspect and "leverage" it to your benefit. But you can't do everything (at least on King+) so what you're doing you're essentially building your own civ experience, picking the tactics that work best for you personally and that makes your game so special - it's in tune with yourself, and you control the way it unfolds.


In civ5 so far the only way is warwarwarwarwarwar. I'm not impressed, especially that AI is not challenging with warfare one bit.

 

[scratchthepitch]

Well Civ4 wouldn't haven been possible without Civ3, functionally and practically as Soren built both and Civ4 took ALOT of mechanics from Civ3 and streamlined them (too much for my tastes). And yes Civ5 appears heavily influenced by Civ3 (but with worse out of the gate AI)

Civ3 to me has the right idea on how to handle AI. Pure sandlot. Give AI low level goals (expand, kill, destroy), add some higher level diplomatic rules and let them go at each other, form alliances and watch the world burn. Keep it simple. no corporations, no religion, no bells and whistles.

The problem I had with civ4 were the SMAC elements, that the AI superficially can handle but in reality is meant only for human consumption.

Religion is one. Ok AI can expand their religions, can benefit gpt from religious cities but honestly, if a AI converts to a religion that is the same as the human players, there's no real benefit to the AI vis a vis interactions with humans and no corresponding relationship bonus from the human side, but the AI is now less likely to attack, much to the human's delight. The same coutesy however is not extended to the AI.

So religion is largely a one way street. entirely manageable and exploitable by humans but something the AI can't handle.

Thanks. You described some of the reasons why I never cared for Civ4. I would have much preferred a Civ3 with an AI present, rather than have seen that effort go into Civ4 eye-candy.

 

[mrt144]

As much as I still like (or want to like) hex/1UpT - I worry that there is literally so much that needs to be done and what needs to be done is so radical, that for one thing -- other aspects (and I think there are other aspects that are a mess) will suffer.... Civilization was never supposed to be a military strategy game - I'd hate for it to become that - but it seems there is no other choice.

Thank you, this post is one of the reasons I keep coming back to this forum on civ fanatics.

 

[mrt144]

Well Civ4 wouldn't haven been possible without Civ3, functionally and practically as Soren built both and Civ4 took ALOT of mechanics from Civ3 and streamlined them (too much for my tastes). And yes Civ5 appears heavily influenced by Civ3 (but with worse out of the gate AI)

Civ3 to me has the right idea on how to handle AI. Pure sandlot. Give AI low level goals (expand, kill, destroy), add some higher level diplomatic rules and let them go at each other, form alliances and watch the world burn. Keep it simple. no corporations, no religion, no bells and whistles.

The problem I had with civ4 were the SMAC elements, that the AI superficially can handle but in reality is meant only for human consumption.

Religion is one. Ok AI can expand their religions, can benefit gpt from religious cities but honestly, if a AI converts to a religion that is the same as the human players, there's no real benefit to the AI vis a vis interactions with humans and no corresponding relationship bonus from the human side, but the AI is now less likely to attack, much to the human's delight. The same coutesy however is not extended to the AI.

So religion is largely a one way street. entirely manageable and exploitable by humans but something the AI can't handle.

But as a game mechanic it functioned as a means of building local alliances against the "others". It also provided alternative means of upping happiness to boot, something the AI COULD grasp. And you're basically in the camp that believes AI should play like a human to beat a human, not that the AI should provide resistance for the human to overcome. Religion was fine for me.

 

[Bad Brett]

I don't agree. Once the AI has the same religion as human it then often becomes a valuable ally (how many times human player could trade latest techs with only one AI on the landmass since other had different state religion and hated infidels?) and if I'm on a landmass or better yet Pangea with same religion Izzy and different religion Monty I know after whom I'll go first. Resource trading often is beneficial for the AI.
Yes, human player is the ultimate backstabber but hey, Monty can declare on +5 same faith share too, right? Also, if you declare on the same religion AI you get happiness penalty - not a grave danger but it's another tip for the player to take care of other AI's first and perhaps later try Free Religion or sth.

Lastly, it's not like the AI is helpless if it's of the same religion as human - it still pursues founding new religions, while lots of different AI will go spreading their faith across the globe and often previously friendly AI becomes Cautious, while human does the same cause he/she still hopes that through diplo/more missionary spread/espionage can sway said AI back to the same religion as before.

Many people didn't really get religions in Civ4 which imo is yet another example how beautifully complex that game is - you can play pretty much all your games without bothering about it, using different tools at your disposal or you can focus on that aspect and "leverage" it to your benefit. But you can't do everything (at least on King+) so what you're doing you're essentially building your own civ experience, picking the tactics that work best for you personally and that makes your game so special - it's in tune with yourself, and you control the way it unfolds.


In civ5 so far the only way is warwarwarwarwarwar. I'm not impressed, especially that AI is not challenging with warfare one bit.

Good post. Also, it's important to remember that strong personalities have always existed in Civ. You knew that Mongols would come for you in Civ 1.

Soren wanted to make diplomacy matter. His belief was that the Civ AI shouldn't be a substitution of a human player, and though I must confess that I was sceptical at first, after playing Civ 5 I really understand what he meant.

I can't really see how people can call religion an exploit. Basically you are building missionaries instead of combat units to prevent a war. It's not like it is for free. And one of the reasons they included this was so that peaceful players could use different strategies to prevent wars.

Also, people make religion sound so simple. When playing on Deity, there's a huge risk that you won't be able to found any religions at all.

Civilization was originally supposed to be a mixture of Empire and SimCity. The goal is for you to build an empire. The AI should be a challenge, but they shouldn't try to spoil the fun by using the same, dirty strategies that you do. This is intentional.

But Jon decided to remove the SimCity part and just make it Empire with updated graphics. Or as Soren would have described it: Jon turned a "fun" AI into a "good" AI... except that it isn't even good.

 

[Aneurism]

I'm actually surprised that I'm hearing so much on these forums about instability in Civ V, since I've yet to experience any sort of bug or crash in the 40 or so hours I've played so far.

I agree. I've played 4 normal speed games and played through the tutorials, and I've only had 1 crash to the desktop. In civ4 release I remember lots of crashing near the point of unplayability until the first serious batch of patches.

 

[charon2112]

I agree. I've played 4 normal speed games and played through the tutorials, and I've only had 1 crash to the desktop. In civ4 release I remember lots of crashing near the point of unplayability until the first serious batch of patches.

I've got about 140 hours down, and not one crash...or any major bug.

 

[Venereus]

I've got about 140 hours down, and not one crash...or any major bug.

And that proves what?

 

[charon2112]

And that proves what?

I was responding to someone else that had no crashes, adding to the fact that not everyone experiences crashes.

 

[dexters]

But as a game mechanic it functioned as a means of building local alliances against the "others". It also provided alternative means of upping happiness to boot, something the AI COULD grasp. And you're basically in the camp that believes AI should play like a human to beat a human, not that the AI should provide resistance for the human to overcome. Religion was fine for me.

No where in my statement did I say AI should play like a human.

AI's need to treat human players as 1 of many which is really the cornerstone of Civ since Civ3 and there's nothing in my experience with Civ V that would indicate otherwise. Humans will ALWAYS have advantages over the AI.

When I put on my rose colored glasses and talk about Civ3's sandlot I was talking less about human interactions with the AI, but how AI plays against its environment, humans included.

Sandlots by default mean equality, AI's will attack when you are strong, and be more passive when they are weak. The great thing about Civ3 is that it has these high level treaties that collectively work like the great power alliances of Europe. The MPP domino effect was a common sight. And underneath these high level alliances are a series of flexible treaties. ROP (open borders), lump sum tech/gold for perturn gold trades. And despite no formal guidance and no hard coded 'pacts' the AI can through geography, mutual alliances and some chance form power blocks X,Y,Z in a loose coaltion against A,B,C. That is FUN to watch and creates interesting dynamics and politics.

But there's nothing restrictive like the vassal states of Civ4.

So what you ended up with is the low level AI working to evaluate its position, lots of intrigue. Alliances made and because there's no 'vassal' system, the game remains dynamic.

My biggest gripe with vassal states is it narrows down interactions in a standard map game very quickly from the 8 civs you start out with down to 3,4 sometimes only 2 civs, because everyone else has been eliminated or has become vassals or someone else.

That's in part because Civ4 chose to go with very restrictive hard coded diplomacy, rather than the looser diplomacy of Civ3.

It's 2 different approaches with a similar AI. Soren programmed both. I much prefer his first attempt, which while opening some exploits, created a dynamic diplomatic environment I have not experienced since.

 

[dexters]

But as a game mechanic it functioned as a means of building local alliances against the "others". It also provided alternative means of upping happiness to boot, something the AI COULD grasp. And you're basically in the camp that believes AI should play like a human to beat a human, not that the AI should provide resistance for the human to overcome. Religion was fine for me.

No where in my statement did I say AI should play like a human.

AI's need to treat human players as 1 of many which is really the cornerstone of Civ since Civ3 and there's nothing in my experience with Civ V that would indicate otherwise. Humans will ALWAYS have advantages over the AI.

When I put on my rose colored glasses and talk about Civ3's sandlot I was talking less about human interactions with the AI, but how AI plays against its environment, humans included.

Sandlots by default mean equality, AI's will attack when you are strong, and be more passive when they are weak. The great thing about Civ3 is that it has these high level treaties that collectively work like the great power alliances of Europe. The MPP domino effect was a common sight. And underneath these high level alliances are a series of flexible treaties. ROP (open borders), lump sum tech/gold for perturn gold trades. And despite no formal guidance and no hard coded 'pacts' the AI can through geography, mutual alliances and some chance form power blocks X,Y,Z in a loose coaltion against A,B,C. That is FUN to watch and creates interesting dynamics and politics.


So what you ended up with is the low level AI working to evaluate its position, lots of intrigue. Alliances made and because there's no 'vassal' system, the game remains dynamic.


My biggest gripe with vassal states is it narrows down interactions in a standard map game very quickly from the 8 civs you start out with down to 3,4 sometimes only 2 civs, because everyone else has been eliminated or has become vassals or someone else. That's not to say this doesn't happen with Civ3, runaway AIs will eat everything in its path, but it doesn't always happen, whereas Civ4, Vassal State hanger's on is reliable in every game.

It also removes what I call 'power arbitrage' from the game. When all the weak Civs are aligned by hard coded pacts to this or that other more powerful Civ, as a human player you can't influence politics as much, because you tend to have to deal with ther masters.

In Civ3 you could sort of buddy up with a smaller Civ on the edge of a large AI you're targeting and use them as your proxies.

That's in part because Civ4 chose to go with very restrictive hard coded diplomacy, rather than the looser diplomacy of Civ3.

It's 2 different approaches with a similar AI. Soren programmed both. I much prefer his first attempt, which while opening some exploits, created a dynamic diplomatic environment.

 

[PieceOfMind]

dexters, those posts are almost identical (by accident I assume). Can you please consolidate them? Then I can delete one.

 

[V. Soma]

OP updated...

 

[tom2050]

I'm overwhelmingly happy to get to publicly speak for my favorite game franchise of all time. I've been a huge Civ fan since Civ 1. It makes the occasional rudeness I have to deal with completely worth it.

Oh poor 2K Greg! Has it so tough! Maybe we should all chip in and buy Greggy a box of tissues for his sniffles. What a bunch of rude idiots 2K Greg has to 'deal with'. I mean, 2K lies and hypes the game up on Certain Things (not everything), and then he has to deal with disappointed gamers that spent their hard-earned money, and may feel a bit let down by the game.

But wait, it's just more propraganda (erhmm I mean marketing strategy) by 2K, in an attempt (from the sounds of it) to demonize disappointed gamers in a way; because as 2K Greg said, it's the greatest thing that has ever happened in the history of the universe, and everyone else is just some rude pee-on that 2K has to 'put up with'.

I'm glad 2K doesn't come around and fill up CFC with this kind of garbage, I say leave it on 2K forums.

What company in their right mind would call it's customers rude? Well, I guess 2K gets it from their parent, Take-2, who blamed modders for putting porn in one of their games, when it was actually Take-2 who was responsible for it (something like that IIRC).

2K Greg =

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What company in their right mind would call it's customers rude?

You've never done customer service, have you? Try it some time and you might just change your mind on this. Or call someone up and act that way, and wonder why you've been put on hold for six hours.

There's a difference between airing a formal gripe, and being a [jerk] just because you can. Maybe he shouldn't have said it that way publicly, but that's a different issue.

 

[Ogrelord]

OP updated...

The Oct 9th link doesn't lead to the quote. It leads to another thread on this forum?