1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

3 good, 3 bad and 3 hopeless

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Mad Hab, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Ok, by picking the definition that involved the word 'efficient' I probably harmed my point a bit. The point I was getting at is that streamlining is about making something simpler by cutting out the non essential stuff. In the definition I quoted, it's mainly spoken of in context of business, where the goal of streamlining a process would be to save on unnecessary costs. The efficiency bit is not really what I was trying to get at with civ5.

    I still would argue the buildings in civ5 have their functions streamlined. There is no question about what each of them is for. There might be wonderfully complex decisions involved in picking which one to use, but their individual functions are obvious. Some provide happiness. Some provide science. Some provide gold. Not really any of them have a mixture of benefits where in some situations one benefit would go unused. There are exceptions to this of course, and most of them seem to be from the UBs, and also the ones that provide specialist slots.

    Anyway, my point is that you're arguing a different point to what I was trying to make, and there isn't anything I'm trying to claim that disagrees with you. All of what you've said can happen if the function of buildings is relatively straight forward.

    Unlike in civ4, there's no longer any reason to build a market to increase happiness, or a library to increase culture, or a castle to increase trade. These are the sorts of things I am talking about. I don't think there's any problem with it - it's just an observation, which obviously many people are also making (and some dislike it more than I do ;)).
     
  2. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    I'm not entirely sure that the system in Civ IV was actually complex, more than it was just hard to decipher at first - a learning curve more than actual complex decision making.

    Having buildings do multiple functions is a bit like "auto-improving" the city, even when it's being specialized. So, if I "focus" on putting culture in a city, I also get happiness, science, and, well, more science. I don't really need to think about all of those things anymore, since the city naturally gets them without my having to think about it.

    Conversely, if I, say, put happiness first, I get culture from temples, gold from Markets, and even health from some UBs. I'm managing happiness, but I'm incidentally hitting a lot of other spheres of performance at the same time.
     
  3. the343danny

    the343danny Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    I would say the current system of one function buildings would have been more fitting in Civ 4, where you had the leisure to make any building, but in Civ 5 where you have to choose your buildings more carefully, it would have been better if there were extra benefits of the buildings you chose.
     
  4. Mad Hab

    Mad Hab Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    São Paulo, Brazil
    I'm not sure for how long you follow the Civ series, but on Civ 1 buildings were like those of Civ 5. And it was very unfun when you started to unvoluntarily "sell" buildings because you ran out of cash.

    They only really addressed that on Civ 4, by eliminating buildings maintenance - which, from my point of view, was brilliant. Yes buidings were free, but they were so well distributed along a well-thought tech tree that the order in which you built/research them could be crucial sometimes. Often, a wrong-timed barracks or granary (instead of, say, an archer) could spell doom to a borderline city...

    More than that, every city *should* have all of the buildings if possible, because you needed to compensate the city cost by building efficient cities. Like it is in real life (have you ever seen a city without a market or temple?).

    Now I'd rather to have a system in which I have to decide the order in which I will erect all buildings in my cities than to have one in which 80% of my cities are producing "units-for-sell" 'cause all available buildings/troops would do more harm than good to my civilisation.

    So, I think Civ 4 system was superior, and you prefer Civ's 1, 2 and 5 system. I don't think any of us will change his mind, so I'll go back to my Civ 4, you'll go enjoy your Civ 5 and everything's fine (except for the money I spent on a game I expected would improve upon his predecessor, instead of return to a previous formula).

    Best,

    Mad Hab
     
  5. Calouste

    Calouste Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,725
    That's funny.
     
  6. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    1 upt is the worst thing for the AI combat, and therefor i dislike 1 upt. Because the combat AI will be never good at 1 upt warfare.

    So while you all enjoy 1upt ruling, you are fighting a cripled AI all the way. Time will tell but mark my words; combat AI will never be fixed in CIV 5.
     
  7. DoubleAG

    DoubleAG Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Puppet states don't count towards the amount of culture you need to get a new social policy. On the other hand puppet states have the potential to bankrupt your empire so it can get a little tricky. I usually spam trading post in my puppet states to rob them of the production needed to build useless building :lol:. I've even heard of someone not researching iron working so the AI wouldn't waste time building barracks.
     
  8. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    The patch includes the option to keep the puppet states from building military installations and to instruct them to generate gold.
     
  9. fcolmenarez

    fcolmenarez Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    22
    I don't think it's an option, it does that all the time now. They've made some very good improvements to the Puppets. You can now view a city to see it from inside before deciding to raze, annex or puppter. Even after you puppet you can check out the city inside. When you do this you'll see that all of your puppets are automatically shifted to gold focus. According to the patch they don't produce military and don't build any resource required buildings now. Puppets are actually now very nice to have.
     
  10. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    I don't understand this. The purpose is to have fewer yet more valuable units to fight with. I love the idea of turning out a great unit (like a Cav) every 8 turns in a production city, as oppose to 3 every 2 turns in Civ4. I guess that have to limit the production in order to achieve that goal.
     
  11. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Combat AI was never good in any Civ ever made, and that especially includes Civ 4 where the AI would suicide its stack against yours deliberately, in an area where the stack death will cause it massive unhappiness, and where it has zero chance of having stack remnants retreat safely.

    All the time, it's stockpiling half its total troop count in garrisons. Ironically, having the AI waste troops on garrisons actually improved its performance. That tells you how terribly bad it was at Civ 4's simple strategic-level combat.

    It's not 1UPT that makes Civ AI combat bad. It's always been bad. Some players simply chose not to look too closely.
     

Share This Page