TM Moot
King
This. Everything else but especially this.
If you want to retain trade posts, make them +4 gold, but only one TP per city.
After the patch is before the patch: What needs to be fixed next
- Thread starter EmpireOfCats
- Start date
This. Everything else but especially this.
If you want to retain trade posts, make them +4 gold, but only one TP per city.
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
Alziel
Warlord
They now need to fix the bug which is stopping City States from recognizing roads that have been built to them.
Who else has this happened to since the patch?
A CS asks for a road to be built, so you build the road and get no influence boost. Then when you check the CS message again it is still asking for a road!
Cheers
Who else has this happened to since the patch?
A CS asks for a road to be built, so you build the road and get no influence boost. Then when you check the CS message again it is still asking for a road!
Cheers
This is easily my #1 issue on game balance: Remove puppets' ability to ignore policy cost. I'm questioning the reasoning to actually build other cities now. It's even worse post-patch: A 1-city National College empire can actually sustain you until the Medieval, so why not live off of that until you can grab some puppets as well? Gun for the national wonder, then go military, and you'll find you actually have more damn science and policies in your 1-city empire than your 3 or 4 city pre-patch empire.
ohhhh yeah, I see what some of you are saying about build times now (finally have the game). I have the "most productive people", and in my best production city it'll take 61 turns to build a research lab? Meanwhile I'm getting a new tech every 15-20 turns and a new SP every 10-15 turns. Bullcrap, fix that.
Zydor
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,120
They removed "The Epic Journey" elements, hopefully they will return as Civ 5 continues its rebuild. My comment, although along the lines of "Epic Journey", are applicable to both camps - warmonger or Builder. As it stands at present, we have - fundamentally two choices, all out war or hunker down and press the enter button for other wins.
Any Civilisatioon as it builds has to face War - we humans are a nasty bunch, its life - but its not always all out war. Certainly early in Civilisation's "progress", war was about the only option to expand - the Assyrians made sure of that, life was never the same again after they did their thing. However as we "progressed" in the second millenium - particularly in the later half of the last decade, war becomes a last resort. Even in the 18th and 19th Century, all out Continental style warfare - whilst common - was not "the only game in town".
Brushfire wars - in the vernacular known as "Limited Wars" - became slowly more common, as the consequencies of all out war were too bad to contemplate. Igniting these regional conflicts because some nutty dictator got too big for his boots, or gained a monoipoly on strategic metals or ran out of resources to support its population or a bunch of crazies took over some far flung part of the empire ("freedom for the people") or "off with his head" said the Parliamentarians in England, only to be thrown out again 10 years later- yaddie yadda. All these things are not hard to programme in - time for sure, and will cost - but we have been down this road before. (They have now brought in "Rebellions" but they will be rare and are only there as a mechanic to force the player down a happiness root).
Those kinds of conflicts will add enormously to the game, even appeal to a "Builder" like me - its reality, sometimes you do have to get out the guns to keep the show on the road. You just dont have to slaughter all the rest of Mankind to progress - even we humans dont go down the latter road as a default avenue of choice any more.
Regards
Zy
Any Civilisatioon as it builds has to face War - we humans are a nasty bunch, its life - but its not always all out war. Certainly early in Civilisation's "progress", war was about the only option to expand - the Assyrians made sure of that, life was never the same again after they did their thing. However as we "progressed" in the second millenium - particularly in the later half of the last decade, war becomes a last resort. Even in the 18th and 19th Century, all out Continental style warfare - whilst common - was not "the only game in town".
Brushfire wars - in the vernacular known as "Limited Wars" - became slowly more common, as the consequencies of all out war were too bad to contemplate. Igniting these regional conflicts because some nutty dictator got too big for his boots, or gained a monoipoly on strategic metals or ran out of resources to support its population or a bunch of crazies took over some far flung part of the empire ("freedom for the people") or "off with his head" said the Parliamentarians in England, only to be thrown out again 10 years later- yaddie yadda. All these things are not hard to programme in - time for sure, and will cost - but we have been down this road before. (They have now brought in "Rebellions" but they will be rare and are only there as a mechanic to force the player down a happiness root).
Those kinds of conflicts will add enormously to the game, even appeal to a "Builder" like me - its reality, sometimes you do have to get out the guns to keep the show on the road. You just dont have to slaughter all the rest of Mankind to progress - even we humans dont go down the latter road as a default avenue of choice any more.
Regards
Zy
I have to comment on the "Epic Journey". I've read lots about what people have said about it in numerous threads but it's still very vague and differs from person to person. I feel it's something people say when they can't find the words to say what they specifically hate about Civ5, so they just say that instead. I saw the same line of thinking when people were saying "Civ5 suffers from simplification".
Can you give me a clarification? What exactly is Civ5 doing wrong?
The 'Epic Journey' element has not been removed, its been moved to a different part of the game
Civ 4 epic journey = 4000BC through 2050AD
Civ 5 epic journey = build 1.0.0.61 through build 3.20.00.00
Seriously though, what I would like to see is an in game option to regenerate the map, rather than returning to the main menu
Zydor
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,120
Its not so much "doing wrong", its just the simplistic Strategic Choices we now have. I dont dispute for a second that we all have our preferences, needs, wants etc. Whats good for one, is poison for another. In the latter is the point. At present the only real option (that gives a challenge) is blow your neighbour apart, recouperate rebuild casualties, and go look for someone else to blow up.
Thats fine for the warmonger - but there are games built from ground up to do that, Civ will never compete with a wargame, has never tried to, and in the past kept to the Franchise Aim of "Build an Empire to Stand the Test of Time". In essence what we have now is "exterminate the rest of Mankind and win the Game"
When "warmongering", your time is full, there's lots to do and think about, choices to make, Strategies to ponder, tactics to perfect and refine. Your "Journey" is full - albeit a bit much as we humans do do other things besides blow each other up.
The development of Science & Technology is a long and complex thing, and in fact drove the military down the Ages. The build up of Science & Technology in Civ5 is no challenge, it is a by-product of pressing the turn button enough times. Cultural aspects are tuned to providing military advantage, and do not represent the carnage and chaos it can cause with your neighbour. Politics & Diplomacy seems simplistic and scripted staid responses. If you go down the "Builder" route, and have a military fairly strong to defend yourself - game over, whats left to do?
A lot of this was stripped out on the change Civ 4 to Civ 5. Certainly the latter is no longer a Strategic game anymore because of that, its a tactical game of military deployment. Grand Strategy has been nerfed.
Is all that "bad", well if an individual is a builder - yup, thats for sure. Does it mean Civ 5 is a "bad game" - no of course not. It just cuts down the numbers it will appeal to. I suspect the latter is happening as they shift the game to "appeal to a wider fanbase". The latter was clearly stated by Shafer as one of the Prime Objectives of the Civ 5 release. So far the reality is many "Strategy Gamers" are deserting to Paradox, as the "Grand Strategy" feeling has been lost in Civ 5. Time will tel if they are indeed shifting radically and permanently the core design, we'll really know for the first time after the first expansion.
Not all will agree - surprise surprise - but there is clear evidence many do, and dislike having "The Epic Journey" nerfed the way it has been up to this point - hopefully it returns by the First Expansion.
The 'Epic Journey' element has not been removed, its been moved to a different part of the game
Civ 4 epic journey = 4000BC through 2050AD
Civ 5 epic journey = build 1.0.0.61 through build 3.20.00.00
Love it - you got that right
Regards
Zy
The Khalifa
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 5
@ grandad1982
Thanksal lot for pointing me in the right direction and welcoming me to the forum,
Thanksal lot for pointing me in the right direction and welcoming me to the forum,
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
@Zydor
Well put.
I'd also add that by the time BTS was resleased there were at least 5 viable kinds of economy that you could run (that I can think of). Some that were pretty novel and required considerable long term strategic choices.
In civ5 it feels very much like you have no really demanding choices to make. It feels like a brown economy.
Still I enjoy the game but I wait to see what happens a year down the line (expansion packs if at all....).....
Well put.
I'd also add that by the time BTS was resleased there were at least 5 viable kinds of economy that you could run (that I can think of). Some that were pretty novel and required considerable long term strategic choices.
In civ5 it feels very much like you have no really demanding choices to make. It feels like a brown economy.
Still I enjoy the game but I wait to see what happens a year down the line (expansion packs if at all....).....
That really still isn't explaining what an "epic journey" is, or more importantly, how Civ4 managed to nail it and Civ5 didn't. Let's get more specific. What exactly are you talking about that you can do as a Civ4 builder and not as a Civ5 builder? How could it be border interference if that actually affected gameplay very little? Is it espionage, or local happiness/health, or what? Are you saying that you can't influence the world as much with politics in Civ5 with Civ4? Was it the slider? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm actually wondering what Civ5 has missed as that'll give us an idea on what players want.
Actually Civ1 was supposed to be a more complex version of the board game Risk. It was meant to be a war game. It was only after seeing players enjoy the builder aspect that they expanded upon that in later games. Civ5 is much less war focused than Civ1. It just happens to be more war focused than Civ4, which has some players up in arms, even though it's definitely not neglecting the builder aspect.Zydor said:
They actually made it worse by making no science specialists available until universities.. so now there is no specialist economy until mid-game either.
EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
This would be my best-case version of what is going on with Civ V:
The Story So Far:
- 2K puts pressure on Firaxis to release the game before it is finished. I used to think about half a year too early, but now I'm leaning towards one year. The amount of work this game needs is staggering.
- Firaxis, cringing, releases a buggy game that is more a "Civ War" spin-off than anything else.
- Multiple enormous patches (even Ars Technica was shocked) are required to get the game stable, not to mention playable even in the stripped-down warmonger version.
And Now For The Continuation:
- Firaxis fixes multiplayer, gives the AI more IQ and optimizes the game in two or three further major patches. The game is still only "Civ War", but is stable and actually works as multiplayer and with huge maps.
- After a longer break, Firaxis releases an expansion pack that restores the depth of the game as known and loved from Civ IV BtS: Tile yields and resources are completely reworked, so that city placement matters again; production and research are rebalanced so that you don't spend half of the game mindlessly clicking "next turn". The expansion carries a serious price, but the result is really "Civ V".
- Because 2K forces them to release the expansion before it is ready again, another round of huge patches ensues.
- After another longish break, additional game mechanisms from Civ IV are restored, especially religion and espionage.
And at this point, it's time for Civ VI.
The Story So Far:
- 2K puts pressure on Firaxis to release the game before it is finished. I used to think about half a year too early, but now I'm leaning towards one year. The amount of work this game needs is staggering.
- Firaxis, cringing, releases a buggy game that is more a "Civ War" spin-off than anything else.
- Multiple enormous patches (even Ars Technica was shocked) are required to get the game stable, not to mention playable even in the stripped-down warmonger version.
And Now For The Continuation:
- Firaxis fixes multiplayer, gives the AI more IQ and optimizes the game in two or three further major patches. The game is still only "Civ War", but is stable and actually works as multiplayer and with huge maps.
- After a longer break, Firaxis releases an expansion pack that restores the depth of the game as known and loved from Civ IV BtS: Tile yields and resources are completely reworked, so that city placement matters again; production and research are rebalanced so that you don't spend half of the game mindlessly clicking "next turn". The expansion carries a serious price, but the result is really "Civ V".
- Because 2K forces them to release the expansion before it is ready again, another round of huge patches ensues.
- After another longish break, additional game mechanisms from Civ IV are restored, especially religion and espionage.
And at this point, it's time for Civ VI
.Back on topic of the wishlist for the new patch:
-It would be cool if the tooltip showed up for the diplomacy overview screen and when a civ comes to you with a trade proposal instead of only when you open up negotiations with them. Most of the time I don't bother to find out why anyone feels the way they do about me because there's no quick way to do it.
-When a trade deal expires it would be cool if clicking on the notification brought up the diplomacy screen with the exact agreement that just expired on the table, so all we had to do was click that then "propose," rather than "negotiate, luxury resources, cotton, luxury resources, gold, propose."
-It would be cool if the tooltip showed up for the diplomacy overview screen and when a civ comes to you with a trade proposal instead of only when you open up negotiations with them. Most of the time I don't bother to find out why anyone feels the way they do about me because there's no quick way to do it.
-When a trade deal expires it would be cool if clicking on the notification brought up the diplomacy screen with the exact agreement that just expired on the table, so all we had to do was click that then "propose," rather than "negotiate, luxury resources, cotton, luxury resources, gold, propose."
One of the most important things to fix are the civics. The current system forces you to start aiming for a particular victory condition from the very start of the game. This, along with the other AIs blatantly talking about "winning a game" destroys every bit of immersion that one might have.
And what immersion am I talking about? Well, the fact that this is supposed to be the struggle of a civilization to develop, change and survive the challenges of 6000 years. No civilization will hold onto the same philosophies (civics) for that long. Changes are bound to take place.
Give us back our civilization, instead of this _game_.
And what immersion am I talking about? Well, the fact that this is supposed to be the struggle of a civilization to develop, change and survive the challenges of 6000 years. No civilization will hold onto the same philosophies (civics) for that long. Changes are bound to take place.
Give us back our civilization, instead of this _game_.
EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
The whole concept of wonders was removed from the game -- the name is still there, but they are really only larger buildings. There wow I just built Stonehenge feeling is completely gone. This should be fixed -- or the pseudo-wonders removed -- but that is something that should be part of the late rebalance of yields and buildings times.
Similar threads
