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

A cogent explanation on the shortfalls of Civ V

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by masterminded, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Leif Roar:

    The Civs in Civ also generally tell you how it is between you. The initial animation and commentary as you open up the diplomacy screen always tell you this. When they're friendly, they even call you "My friend." I have very rarely been under attack from former friends without the relationship souring first, and that has been the case in history as well.

    bruntfca:

    Just because you disagree doesn't mean that you have to be unpleasant, and I clearly earmarked where I said that my preference for opaque diplomacy was a preference.

    Being unhappy doesn't hit your combat rating. Being very unhappy (at -10 happiness or less) gives you a -33% penalty, among other maluses. Unhappy and Very Unhappy are different states, and the game goes out of its way to smack you in the face with the exact differences.

    This is different from how it was done before, so yes, going unhappy large only stops your upward growth, as I said. You can check out the files in your own game for confirmation, if you wish.

    Doctor Phibes:

    If it's anything to do by, I find the AI extremely reluctant to do war with me when we're trading three or more resources with each other.

    I can understand how Pearl Harbor was viewed as inevitable, and when the Japanese fleet went "missing," American generals should have deduced where it was headed. That said, as I mentioned before, most of the AIs have decided likes and dislikes, and they are more likely to respect or not respect you depending. I've noticed that Gandhi really doesn't like it when you go around warring with people. Alexander doesn't mind much, but he's more likely to attack you when he's got nothing better to do - like expand or attack someone else.

    The diplomacy in the game is opaque, but it is hardly unreadable.
     
  2. Leif Roar

    Leif Roar Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    Of course there were -- but while there might be some exceptions, at the top of my head I can't think of a single one that came out of a political blue sky. The closest I can think of is the German attack on Denmark and Norway in World War II, but even that occurred under the brewing storm-clouds of the greater political situation in Europe and Norway's closer ties to the UK and the USA.

    This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. For much of history, out-of-the-blue attacks weren't even possible, as preparation for war were too laborious and slow to be hidden: men had to be massed, shipping secured, fodder and victuals procured and stored, oxen and wagons purchased, mercenaries hired and nobels informed and convinced.
     
  3. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    Sometimes it seems to make sense at first, I grant you. But I find that facade generally collapses fairly soon. For example, I've encountered the same issue that many others have reported here - that an AI player will ask you to join in a war and then when the enemy is vanquished, tell you you're a warmonger and flounce off. (There are plenty of others.) Allies falling out is not unknown in the real world, obviously, but it's usually for a reason - for example the ideological split after 1945. There is no rhyme or reason to the AI's conduct that I can discern.

    (It might help if there were such a thing as a Shared Victory condition, actually.)
     
  4. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    Yes, absolutely. I've mentioned 1914 several times. The true horror of that year was that everyone knew much of what was coming when the fuse was finally well and truly lit [1]. But the conditions of mobilisation at the time meant that mobilisation could not be stopped by any of the continental powers without them becoming vulnerable to the opposing power that continued with its mobilisation. This is a classic example in game theory.

    The only way of stopping the slide to the precipice would have been to rebuild some trust. But that requires diplomacy, which had failed repeatedly, often due to happenstance events.

    [1] Specific details proved a surprise, for example the supremacy of defensive tactics that lead to the stalemate in the west, but I don't think that negates the overall point.
     
  5. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Doctor Phibes:

    Clearly, it's trying to make up a reason to hate you because you didn't join him in his war! ;)

    I mean, seriously, is it bad that the AI would not like you after you refused to join it in what it viewed as a just cause? I mean, sure, it's telling you it doesn't like you in a limited language, but it seems rather obvious to me why it behaved that way, doesn't it?

    There is always going to be a pattern to the AI behavior, because it is governed by code. That much is completely obvious. The AI behavior is not being governed by RNG. It follows AI coding. It just falls on players to discern the pattern.

    Most of the patterns I have discerned hold up. Gandhi generally hates it when you fight, regardless of reason, and Alexander and Napoleon don't. In fact, I had Napoleon trading stuff with me before and after a nice war. You war on Gandhi and he won't tell you the time of day afterwards.
     
  6. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    The AI reward system is designed to make Civ a wargame. They could have programmed it to make co-operation valuable for at least some AIs and they could have put in things like trade which made peace profitable. They chose not to, instead opting for military aggression and dogpiling on the weak as their "strategies." You could just as easily have adopted a balance of power approach, e.g. help the weak so that none of your competitors get too big and dangerous.

    The Civ 5 system is simply miserable for those of us who don't want to see ourselves facing one big AI in one big war (unless there is an ocean between us, in which case nothing happens unless we cross the pond.)
     
  7. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    You misunderstand. The example I'm giving is where you *do join them* and mutually defeat the enemy. And I'm not the only one who's had this, it's being reported all over the place.
     
  8. Lord Parkin

    Lord Parkin aka emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,374
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Yeah, I've had that exact problem too.
     
  9. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Doctor Phibes:

    Interesting. It could be any Civ, since warmongering always has a negative impact, but Gandhi and several other Civs would be more likely to see that as negative, even if it is their war you joined, on their side, even. It sounds crazy, but it's not random.
     
  10. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    It is easy to win in EVERY way, i am afraid. You are right. I am right too; it still sucks.

    Getting out of unhappines is real easy; raze a few just conquered cities and you're done. It's simple, too simple. It's CIV 5

    What you say here is again simple. Simple, easy and yet again; its CIV 5

    Ow yeah, the "Panzered" Horseman and "one strike killer" Catapult are really usefull in CIV 5.
    Simple, easy, again; its CIV 5.

    Excuse me, making WAR with a lousy handfull of units is not my cup of tea. I've made 4 Horsemen and together with the warrior you start with, i razed six cities and killed dozens of AI-units. Took me 100+ turns to get this far, too much for my liking. Simple, easy, and boring too; Again : it's CIV 5

    You are absolutely right for once; do as above, crush your oponents, cash in while they sea for peace and pop up those libraries, markets, etc.etc.etc.
    Simple, fast, easy; again: its CIV 5


    True, but in older CIV's you really had too put up a fight and even then, sometimes they backstabbed you. By the time they backstab me in CIV 5, i already own halff the planet....lol
    Again, easy, simple; its CIV 5

    The difference is, that it SEEMS to be complex. Once you look "under the hood" ; it's all soo simple.


    In some ways diplomacy is indeed better, in others just as worse or worser.

    That needs a fix, and this too, and over there, you need a fix there. The game is drowning in fixable fixes...lol

    Yeah, finally you can do someting. Forget all the other issue's, you can ICS, people!
     
  11. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Jediron:

    All the problems you're having are not complexity issues but difficulty issues - the AI isn't good enough to take on Civ V.

    Civ V's systems are streamlined - that is, they don't generally ask you to make illusionary choices. Civ IV had a lot of these fiddly bits. You build a Granary to grow your cities. You don't really get a choice there most of the time, you just click it. Just another thing to do to grow and build infrastructure. Not much choice there.

    Slinging hard and deep into the tech tree was also harder, so you pretty much had to fill your tech tree (using tech trades) all the time. No choices there, either.

    Even maneuvering your SoD was simple most of the time. Pick a path to the nearest city, then attack. Couldn't be simpler. In Civ V, you at least have to have some semblance of tactics to get Horsemen to win you the game.

    Just because the AI sucks at it doesn't mean that Civ V is less complex. It suggests that it's harder, not simpler.
     
  12. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    No it was Napoleon. And Lord Parkin's was Liz. I'm sorry, but I think you're introducing selection bias - counting only the times that AI behaviour makes sense (remember that a stopped clock is exactly right twice a day), and discounting all examples of crazy behaviour as unimportant.
     
  13. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Doctor Phibes:

    Not at all. I'm not entirely surprised that it might be Napoleon. He must have commented on that particular issue because it was making him uneasy about you. It's a code, not random numbers. It follows a pattern. I can show you the HTML that outlines the modifiers for AI behavior, but why don't you just open the file yourself and see? I don' want to see that. I want it far from my sight.
     
  14. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    Roxlimn
    No, it's not only about the difficulty. It goes beyond that. Read this, for example:
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=389911
    That's another reason....

    The player hardly cannot do anything wrong anymore, thks to streamlining. The thinking is taken over by the advisor. A good CIV 3 player, did not builded every building that could be build; he builded them there, where they would benefit most. Much more versatile and the difference is; CIV 5 tells you exactly what to build where and in CIV 3 you have to figure it out yourself. You call it streamlining; i call it simplicity. It's the same. Personally, i prefer the old system. That divides the men from the boys, so to speak.

    Which on it's own; can have very game UNbalancing effects. Do you really think that's a good development ?

    The tactics were simply, more so while the AI lacked any tactical skill (shoke points...etc.etc.etc.) The managing a nightmare, with guiding all thos singlebuilded units to their proper places....

    You call a overpowered Horsemen or a "one strike killer" catapult TACTIC ?????


    Not only does the AI suck, 1 upt suck the way it is, game balance suck in trillion ways, city states power suck, there is much more then just
    a bad battle AI.

    CIV 5 suggests complexity , suggests it's a harder game, you're right about that. It suggest things, when you play it for the first time.
    It does not take long, for a average/veteron CIV player; that it's all not that complex, not that bad. Infact, it's quite easy. Because it flees like it doesn't matter what you do,
    the victorylane is ironed out for you.

    That impressive Policy tree, looks real complex and overwhelming. You know what i do ? Random pick one "policy". Why bother, when the effects are so little and
    you are gonna win anyway. That's the harder part of CIV 5...lol
    (gonna try a game without using ANY policy at all, or maybe slingshot myself to the Galaxy, in the endgame...hahaha)
     
  15. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Jediron:

    I'm already commenting on that thread, if you didn't notice.
     
  16. Doctor Phibes

    Doctor Phibes Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    London
    I already have, and it's XML, not HTML. It's far from clear what all the modifiers do, but they seem strongly biased towards insensate bloodlust. There's a thread about it here and I'm looking for more info in the modding forum. (The otherwise excellent Modder's Guide says nothing much about Global Defines.)

    Incidentally, if you are refusing to look inside the game mechanics, how are you convinced it's behaving so cleverly?
     
  17. RobO

    RobO King

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    Messages:
    836
    Location:
    Slangerup, Denmark
    Thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to write this down.

    It is a great analysis that summarizes my own thoughts, and the final analysis is spot on. "It sacrifices depth of play for ease of play" - that is basically the tradeoff the designers must have had in mind, and where they goofed.

    I hope some of the excellent modders out there can salvage something from the wreckage. I fear that the design is flawed to a degree that makes it difficult to repair through patches or expansions.
     
  18. Leif Roar

    Leif Roar Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    121
    The difference between the two isn't always as clearcut as we'd like. :p
     
  19. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Doctor Phibes:

    I didn't say it behaved cleverly. I said that it wasn't random. It follows a pattern. I feel like I've been repeating myself a lot here.
     
  20. JonoLith

    JonoLith Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    This is entirely your personal opinion, has not been experienced by the entire player base, and therefore is a point that cannot be argued with. It's as if you have said "I like the color pink." Good for you.

    Gold exists. Use it to buy those buildings. You don't need a stables in every single city.

    Examples please.

    First it's that there's too much restriction, now it's that there's too much freedom! I believe I've hit on what the problem is. You cannot be pleased.

    Kay... work with it. All you've really done is state that you can't just mass up and take the map in one swoop.

    This is actually the only point that's pretty dead on the money. The AI is poor right now. It needs to be looked at pretty drastically.

    Diplomacy is supposed to be inscrutable. If you play a board game, there's no "Diplomacy Meters". You guess what your opponent is up to based on his/her actions in the game proper, not on some +1 system.

    The same ones that have been in the Civ Series for years, but ok.

    Oh noes! Is now possible to lose! I can't just jump into whatever strategy I want to at any second?! This game is too restrictive!!!

    Like it's supposed to be.

    The only case where this example is true is if you don't know what you're doing. Create trading posts around puppetted cities terrain and it FORCES them to produce money. Build a market, and a bank. There's an entire HoV Challenge going on where the top guy, finishing at 1620 at that, does precisely this strategy that you say is impossible.

    The only flaw I see here is that the AI doesn't see the value in City states, it seems. This goes back to the only point you've made that's actually valuable, Poor AI.

    Even STILL, you are required to have a TON of money and invest in the necessary policies to see this through.

    "Genocide" is a funny word to be using here. It's a game. These are the rules.

    Again, point three is well taken.

    I would argue that you're attempting to jam your own perception of what the meta game should be into a game with a completely different approach. Perhaps it's your own thinking that's out of step, and not the game. But let's continue anyway.

    Literally an impossibility, but ok.

    In that they make it actually possible to lose, that is true.

    Oh for the love of... the game has been out for less then a month and already every single strategy has been discovered! OK everyone, you can stop playing now! A random person on the internet has declared that every possible strategy imaginable has been discovered within a three week period! Throw the game away, there's no point to carry on, because in THREE WEEKS every possible thing that we CAN know about a game HAS BEEN KNOWN!

    Sheesh, doesn't it sound ridiculous when people say ridiculous things?

    I firmly believe that the systems that are in place are strong ones. If you play this game with people, the game is intense and incredibly engaging. The only actual flaw in the game is the AI. The AI cannot handle itself in this game quite yet, and until it can, even reasonably, there's no way that the game is going to have the lasting appeal of other titles.

    That said, you are comparing a game that has been out for THREE WEEKS with games that have been out for YEARS. This is foolish, and a logical fallacy at that. It's the same thing that we've seen again and again in the gaming community where people cry about insignificant things, and leap to conclusions to their own detriment. Just play the game, enjoy it, and get creative and weird with it.

    Can we please stop it with these stupid threads that talk about how flawed Civ5 is while giving NO ACTUAL POINTS. How many times have I seen this, "I won't go into detail of how badly designed this game is because it's well tread." The reason you're not going into it is because you can't.

    Sheesh.
     

Share This Page