Alarming silence of Firaxis

[SpiderMinky]

With all due respect, you and Wodan are missing the point. Of course Civ4 added some new functionality. The question is, why did we have to lose other functionality at the same time? Saying you'd gladly give up ranged artillery for other improvements is a false choice. They obviously figured out how to implement it and that it was a good enough feature to include in Civ3. Why not include it plus new functionality in Civ4? Why not build on success?

You know I have stayed out of posting in this thread for days but this artillery bit is just a pet peeve of mine.
I like that you cannot bombard from two squares away The only way I would like to see that implimented at all would be iff you could have couter battery artilery fire from the target damage your stack from two squars away as well.....

So this is not a bit of lost funtionality to me but a GOOD design desicion. I understand that you do not like it but please do not substitue your desires for how the game should have been designed for truly lost functionality they are not nessecarily one and the same.

if you want to focus on lost functionality and not simply differences in game play you would be better off on saying that you miss things like the throne room or other things like that that are truly missing from the game and not a feature that was redesigned not removed.....

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The implication that they didn't implement ranged artillery because they didn't have the time to implement it seems like a real stretch. Isn't it more likely they didn't implement it because it was horribly unbalanced? The idea of being able to attack a stack with no way of countering it is a serious game flaw. Fixing that flaw by not implementing that feature strikes me as a design choice, not a matter of reduced "funtionality".

Bh

Exactly, Direct attack by artillery is where Civ IV ADDED functionality rather than subtracted from it
Civ 3's Artillery were nonfunctional (in terms of any function that led to a balanced, fun game)

Now if you want a truly Realistic combat model with ranged attack for artillery you either have

1 hour turns (not your time, game time.. so that 6000 years= about 500,000 turns... not sure even super marathon players want that)
OR
Simultaneous autoCombat turns of armies over an entire area v. armies over an entire area (my personal favorite, but definitely a VERY complex idea to do well... maybe for civ V or even civ VI if EVER)

 

[JFLNYC]

"Features" like ranged artillery were dropped because the lead designer (Soren) didn't like the way they worked for the new game.

Exactly. Rather than spending the time and resources to make it right, they simply dropped it. I once produced a musical where we had the same problem. The director didn't have the time or creative resources to fix certain numbers in the show. So, the numbers were cut. The result? A shorter and less entertaining show.

The implication that they didn't implement ranged artillery because they didn't have the time to implement it seems like a real stretch. Isn't it more likely they didn't implement it because it was horribly unbalanced? The idea of being able to attack a stack with no way of countering it is a serious game flaw. Fixing that flaw by not implementing that feature strikes me as a design choice, not a matter of reduced "funtionality".

That's what artillery does in real-life and there are ways to counter it. And there were ways to counter it in Civ3. You're really making my point: It was "horribly unbalanced" and rather than spending the time and resources to make it right, they simply dropped it. So, it's not a stretch at all.

No matter how one tries to spin it, either they didn't resort sufficient time and resources to things like ranged artillery or they decided it wasn't a concept worth implementing. You can say they were dropped because "the lead designer (Soren) didn't like the way they worked for the new game," or because they were "horribly unbalanced," but you're saying the same thing: Rather than spending the time and resources to make it right, they simply dropped it.

Think of it this way: If they could find a way to "make it work" and not "horribly unbalanced," wouldn't ranged artillery add an extra dimension to the game? Rather than having to bring your artillery right up to your opponents face (which doesn't happen in real life), you'd actually be able to use it as it was intended to be used.

 

[Bhruic]

That's what artillery does in real-life and there are ways to counter it. And there were ways to counter it in Civ3. You're really making my point: It was "horribly unbalanced" and rather than spending the time and resources to make it right, they simply dropped it. So, it's not a stretch at all.

Ok, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're saying rather than fixing it, they dropped it. I'm saying dropping it is fixing it. I don't care how it works in real life. Civ IV is not a real life simulator. If something from real life breaks game balance, it should be thrown out to preserve game balance. Such is the case here.

No matter how one tries to spin it, either they didn't resort sufficient time and resources to things like ranged artillery or they decided it wasn't a concept worth implementing.

Er, yes. But you are trying to say the former, while I (and others) are saying the latter. And the two have completely different meanings when it comes to the point you are trying to make. If they consciously made a choice not to implement something, then it's a game design issue, and not one of insufficient time/resources.

Bh

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I don't care how it works in real life. Civ IV is not a real life simulator. If something from real life breaks game balance, it should be thrown out to preserve game balance. Such is the case here.
Bh

Exactly.

I would add to that this game is a product of somebody else's labor, so they have zero responsibility to even make a game that you will like - at all. It's their game, they made it, and you can hate if you like but they don't have to care one bit. If you don't like it don't buy it. If you already bought it sell it or feed it to your cat or just throw it away. Life goes on.

 

[JFLNYC]

You know I have stayed out of posting in this thread for days but this artillery bit is just a pet peeve of mine.
I like that you cannot bombard from two squares away The only way I would like to see that implimented at all would be iff you could have couter battery artilery fire from the target damage your stack from two squars away as well.....

So this is not a bit of lost funtionality to me but a GOOD design desicion. I understand that you do not like it but please do not substitue your desires for how the game should have been designed for truly lost functionality they are not nessecarily one and the same.

if you want to focus on lost functionality and not simply differences in game play you would be better off on saying that you miss things like the throne room or other things like that that are truly missing from the game and not a feature that was redesigned not removed.....

Well, first of all, it's just an example of lost functionality. Whether one likes it or not is another question. As for countering artillery, of course it would be a two-edged sword: Artillery from inside a city could bombard SoD's or other artillery while they were still two squares away. It's only my opinion, but such a result would go a long way toward balancing the enormous SoD's of Civ4 because you wouldn't have to wait until they're on your doorstep to bombard them. Of course, this very same concept, both offensively and defensively, is implemented with bombers, missiles and even, to some extent, paratroopers. Why not with artillery?

Just as in real-life battles, modern warfare would become more sophisticated in that you're compelled to add long-range bombing, missiles and artillery strikes in order to achieve your goals. Don't you feel that, once bombers come along, artillery becomes less and less useful, at least until it's mobile? Also, why do you think the AI is so fond of hitting your troops with missiles? It's because, in the absence of ranged artillery, missiles are the next best thing.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Question for those lobbying for "ranged bombardment": You have no problem with scale? A standard map is 84 plots wide, therefore each plot is roughly the equivalent of 300 miles across. No modern Artillery piece has that kind of range, and you want to give it to catapults (I've heard some argue for archery units, too)?

The 2 plot range of Civ III Artillery was. . . .

 

[SpiderMinky]

Well, first of all, it's just an example of lost functionality. Whether one likes it or not is another question. As for countering artillery, of course it would be a two-edged sword: Artillery from inside a city could bombard SoD's or other artillery while they were still two squares away. It's only my opinion, but such a result would go a long way toward balancing the enormous SoD's of Civ4 because you wouldn't have to wait until they're on your doorstep to bombard them. Of course, this very same concept, both offensively and defensively, is implemented with bombers, missiles and even, to some extent, paratroopers. Why not with artillery?

Um the problem with this in a turn based game is that the person defending will always get an extra turn to do this based on this model, the only way this works is if you add in a % chance for couter batery fire like they did with bombing and air interception.

IE the two square bombardment feature was broken as is so it is as Bhuric is saying a fix to remove it, not a loss of a feature.

As I said you would win more points with your argument by focusing on working features that were removed.

 

[JFLNYC]

Ok, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. You're saying rather than fixing it, they dropped it. I'm saying dropping it is fixing it. I don't care how it works in real life. Civ IV is not a real life simulator. If something from real life breaks game balance, it should be thrown out to preserve game balance. Such is the case here.

Sorry, but fixing it is fixing it and dropping it is not. If, as you say, it "breaks game balance," dropping it is not the only alternative. It can also be fixed. You, more than anyone, should understand the concept of fixing things which throw off game balance because you've done a terrific job of fixing such things in your patch. For example, one of the things you fixed was: "AIs less likely to build Executives if they can't afford to use them or already have sufficient." AI's spamming Executives threw the game out of whack. Yet, in your patch, you didn't drop Executives, you fixed them.

Er, yes. But you are trying to say the former, while I (and others) are saying the latter. And the two have completely different meanings when it comes to the point you are trying to make. If they consciously made a choice not to implement something, then it's a game design issue, and not one of insufficient time/resources.

Bh

That's a fair point. I can't remember where I saw it, but Soren has gone on record as saying something to the effect that he couldn't include everything he wanted because of time and resource restraints. Not every feature left out of a game is a design decision. In the case of feature which arguably enhance the game, it's often a matter of lack of time and resources, not a design decision.

 

[King Flevance]

I suppose the question for our discussion is, if they keep the Civ4 engine for Civ5, it is reasonable to expect and ask them to "bring back" some of the "lost" features. Since they now have a good engine foundation, the limited programming resources could be devoted to adding more functionality.

Of course, we might run into problems with the game becoming bigger and bigger and unable to run except on better PCs. Of course, if Civ5 comes out in 2009, it is reasonable to expect a better minimum system requirement of the consumer base.

Wodan

I hope they just stick with this engine for a couple sequels honestly. I am aware they will not go back to 2D and I am fine with that. (Although I think the switchover was a tad premature) Once a title goes from 2D to 3D, thats how it remains, and rightfully so IMO. I just hope they don't decide they need to upgrade engines for every sequel because "it'll be way cool." Graphics are not what this game is about. Graphics are not what any game should ever be about. That's what screensavers are for. And if graphics are your thing, I can suggest MANY games that beat the crap out of civ 4.

Hopefully, they stay on this plateau for a while. In the coming years, the reqs will seem relatively low. They can pull from the new system ideas they liked from previous incarnations and expand on the idea so they arent "reinventing the wheel" every sequel.

Question for those lobbying for "ranged bombardment": You have no problem with scale? A standard map is 84 plots wide, therefore each plot is roughly the equivalent of 300 miles across. No modern Artillery piece has that kind of range, and you want to give it to catapults (I've heard some argue for archery units, too)?

The 2 plot range of Civ III Artillery was. . . .

What about a huge map? I believe that shrinks it down a bit. I don't know nor care for the math formula though myself. Just saying I am curious as to the amount of land in a tile on a huge map. You have a valid point.

Although, I like the idea of ranged bombardment. I have always like the idea of having a catapult, trebuchet, and cannon all have a bombard range of 1. Meaning bombarding damage to any adjacent tile. Collateral damage would still be there, but only in a very low % chance of it happening. Like say 5-10% chance it may cause collateral damage. Catapult could cause up to 2 additional units to recieve like .5 damage. Teb 1 damage to up to 3 units. Cannon 1.5 damage up to 5 units. There could be promotions that add to a % for collateral damage to take place but none to increase the damage itself.

As for the counter to this, if there are artillery in the targeted square, they fire back with the exact same results. Possibility to do collateral damage that is. In addition, cavalry units can be set on a new command much like aircraft's "intercept" command provided they have the proper promotion for that. (They can't do this if they do not have the promotion which should be available at level 3 or 4 IMO) But basically if they have said promotion they are on "patrol" and can flank the enemy and when the attacking artillery bombard, they have a chance to intercept before any damage takes place. Which would destroy the attacking artillery unit. But these cavalry units could only flank once per turn. So if attacking artillery outnumber your patrolling cavalry you can continue to bombard without worry. Unless they have artillery in the city as well. As I would say a defending artillery should be able to fire back every time and not be "spent" after 1 defence shot. So 1 artillery could fire 20 times in defense if 20 artillerys are at the gate.

I don't know some of that would probably be hard to code. Actually I bet alot of it would. And the ideas could be way more simplified most likely. And there may be a hole in it as well. But that is more like an amalgam(sp?) of ideas I have sen on here in various places. But it sounds good.

 

[JFLNYC]

Um the problem with this in a turn based game is that the person defending will always get an extra turn to do this based on this model, the only way this works is if you add in a % chance for couter batery fire like they did with bombing and air interception.

IE the two square bombardment feature was broken as is so it is as Bhuric is saying a fix to remove it, not a loss of a feature.

As I said you would win more points with your argument by focusing on working features that were removed.

Thanks for the advice. For the record, though, I'm not trying to "win points." I'm merely expressing my opinion. Since you have given me good advice, I'll return the favor: Your posts would be more coherent if you used proper spelling and grammar:

I like that you cannot bombard from two squares away The only way I would like to see that implimented at all would be iff you could have couter battery artilery fire from the target damage your stack from two squars away as well.....

 

[Bhruic]

Sorry, but fixing it is fixing it and dropping it is not. If, as you say, it "breaks game balance," dropping it is not the only alternative. It can also be fixed.

It depends on your definition of "fixed". It's not like they dropped artillery completely, they just removed the ability to bombard squares without suffering counter-attacks. You can still build them, and you can still bombard with them. That, to me, is a "fix" of the game imbalance.

Yet, in your patch, you didn't drop Executives, you fixed them.

I'm not sure you can make a valid comparison between a game bug and a game feature.

That's a fair point. I can't remember where I saw it, but Soren has gone on record as saying something to the effect that he couldn't include everything he wanted because of time and resource restraints. Not every feature left out of a game is a design decision. In the case of feature which arguably enhance the game, it's often a matter of lack of time and resources, not a design decision.

Well, yes, I think that's true of almost any game, and any game developer. I can't think of a single project that I've done where I haven't thought of other stuff I'd have loved to put in, if I simply had the time/resources to do so. So yes, I'm sure he said something like that. But I'd be very surprised if he hadn't said something identical if they had have gone with a simpler graphical engine.

I won't deny that they likely spent some more time on the engine that could have been spent in other areas. But consider that they were already fairly familiar with the engine thanks to the work on Pirates. Also keep in mind that a lot of the graphical work is done by artists who wouldn't have the ability to help with non-art related areas of the project. So I don't think the graphical engine had quite as much an impact on the design process as you are imagining.

Bh

 

[JFLNYC]

It depends on your definition of "fixed". It's not like they dropped artillery completely, they just removed the ability to bombard squares without suffering counter-attacks. You can still build them, and you can still bombard with them. That, to me, is a "fix" of the game imbalance.

I'm not sure you can make a valid comparison between a game bug and a game feature.

Bh

At the end of the day, I think we're down to quibbling over semantics.

My original point was that there were certain features in Civ3 (e.g., ranged artillery or the ability to find any city by using the SHIFT+L command) which I would have liked to have seen implemented in Civ4. Ranged artillery in Civ3 was not a bug and allowing the AI in BtS to build as many Executives as it wanted was not a bug. Both were conscious game design features. How they played may have had unintended consequences in terms of game balance, but they were still intended design features. In the same way that you were able to keep the design feature of Executives by mitigating the unintended game balance problem, I would have preferred that Firaxis keep features such as ranged artillery while mitigating any game imbalance issues they may have caused. Similarly, features such as being able to locate cities anywhere on the map without having to search the whole world were not bugs which needed fixing. They were merely conveniences which were not implemented in Civ4. As I said before, other functionality was introduced in Civ4. It simply would have been preferable, in my view, to build upon functionality, rather than substituting one for another. You and others may not have liked or cared about such features and/or conveniences in Civ3. But I did and do.

 

[mjs0]

I won't deny that they likely spent some more time on the engine that could have been spent in other areas. But consider that they were already fairly familiar with the engine thanks to the work on Pirates. Also keep in mind that a lot of the graphical work is done by artists who wouldn't have the ability to help with non-art related areas of the project. So I don't think the graphical engine had quite as much an impact on the design process as you are imagining.

This brought to my mind a point that I haven't seen made yet, in fact I have seen the reverse wrongly-implied.
I was talking about this very subject yesterday, with a friend of mine who is a game producer at EA. Apparently it is a lot easier and way less time-consuming for a professional graphics artist to create moving graphics for a 3d engine than for 2d. This is one reason so few games use 2d now, it is not only that 3d looks better to most of the target audience it is also less expensive, leaving more, not less, budget for the programmers who will work on the actual gameplay. (Of course many games choose to spend the savings on yet more graphics, but I simply don't see evidence of that in Civ4, the graphics although 3d are far from incredibly detailed!)

 

[Bhruic]

I understand your point, and can agree with it to a certain degree. While I don't miss ranged artillery, I won't argue with those who do. My main point of contention is with the idea that ranged bombardment isn't in the game simply because of a lack of time/resources. I don't think that was the reason, I think it was a conscious choice. You can disagree with that choice, but I don't know that you can successfully argue that it's a result of neglect.

Bh

 

[Smidlee]

I agree civ3 artillery didn't seem right on the grand scale of war. It's not like you can capture an whole army to use that army to fight against their own country like you can civ3 artillery pieces. All the other games on the strategic level I've played don't have armies with artillery support greater range than normal armies. Civ3 artillery would make more sense if Civilization included tactical battles.

 

[bovinespy]

Gentlemen, gentlemen! Enough of this petty bickering over ranged artillery!

The real criminal act of omission committed in the transfer of game features between Civ3 and Civ4 involves my beloved tourism gold bonus for Wonders over 1000 years in age.

+ Wonders =
Industrious FTW!!

 

[King Flevance]

I agree civ3 artillery didn't seem right on the grand scale of war. It's not like you can capture an whole army to use that army to fight against their own country like you can civ3 artillery pieces. All the other games on the strategic level I've played don't have armies with artillery support greater range than normal armies. Civ3 artillery would make more sense if Civilization included tactical battles.

Don't get us all started on tactical battles now. I would LOVE that to come in.

 

[SpiderMinky]

Thanks for the advice. For the record, though, I'm not trying to "win points." I'm merely expressing my opinion. Since you have given me good advice, I'll return the favor: Your posts would be more coherent if you used proper spelling and grammar:

Perhaps they would but that would actualy imply that I cared about that in the first place, which quite frankly on an internet message board I really don't as I have a few minutes here and there to dash something out...

Perhaps next time instead of just telling me I spell poorly perhaps you could actulay address the discussion, but alas on a internet discusion board that is as hard to find as good spelling and grammar....

Really out to be an extension to goodwins law that covers spelling and grammar whines as well.

I was actualy pointing out that there are features that were real features that were left out, that do support your supposed real argument that they put more time into the graphics at the expense of game play.
, but i guess you were more interested in continuing to say that Firaxis as a development house sucks since they did not add in your pet broken feature from an older version of the game into a newer version of the game.
That is the substance of what your opinion seems to be, and as always you are well an truly entitled to it.

That said enjoy your dislike of the game I won't try to change it any longer, with rational discusion.

 

[gunter]

Again guys, please do not go off-topic too much otherwise it may seem a try to bump the thread in a wrong way.

I think the Firaxians already grabbed the message, it's up to them now decide to dialog with customers or not....and it's up to us to judge this behaviour ....despiting CIV IV is now a good game indeed, mainly because of Bhruic and friends.

cheers