Arioch's Analyst Thread

[DeepQantas]

Yes, I think some people have taken the "play to win" claims made way back at the GDC & run away with it. When I read the whole "play to win" thing, I just took it to mean that the AI will now actively seek to win the game, but *not* at the expense of being totally illogical. As far as the Diplomatic Victory goes, I'm assuming each Civ will do its best to obtain enough votes to win but, if it can't, then it will vote for the Civ which (a) has the best chance of winning & (b) more importantly, has done the most kind things for it during the game.

That's the kind of diplomatic victory that would suck most. Especially in multiplayer.

Victory should go to the best player, not the nicest player. Sure Greece has been befriending City States from the start and has protected them for centuries against foreign invaders, but Steve the Egyptian promised to buy everyone ice-cream after the game is over so let's throw the game for him.

I'm really hoping that Civs are forced to vote for themselves.

I truly hope thats not the case. Are you suggesting that an AI with whom you've been friendly and allied with for the entire game should start nuking you if you're about to win a space race victory? Thats what as cutthroat as possible means, and effectively destroys all diplomacy late game.

Sounds about right to me. At least on higher difficulties.

If the AI let me win on purpose then I didn't really win against the AI, did I?

...

Sorry for going so much off-topic.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If AI leaders would vote for player:
1. I found THIS illogical to vote for other player to let him/her win.
2. This will be a mechanic which don't work in MP. I doubt Civ 5 designers do all that diplo reworking just to make diplomatic work unreachable in MP.
3. Info screen shows number of votes you have. It can't calculate other leader's votes, though. So either they are only city-state votes, or there is a way to force other leader voting for you (by capturing his/her capital, for example ). Either way it will work in both SP and MP.

The reason why to have both city-states and leaders in diplo voting is what in MP actually players could vote for another player, but this only possible due to external reasons, not tracked for the game.

 

[Vraslosken]

It may make sense from a gameplay perspective, but 40% of the vote to win is extremely lame.

"Less than half of the people support you. In fact, 60% of them hate your guts. YOU WIN!"

Not to mention that it's possible for two different players to have more than 40% of the vote.

Then the person with the most votes will obviously win.

Multiple countries have such electoral rules. In real life UN, the secretary general isn't elected.

 

[AriochIV]

Multiple countries have such electoral rules. In real life UN, the secretary general isn't elected.

In real life, the UN is a powerless body and the position of Secretary General has no real authority, so that doesn't give us much to go on. Granted that none of the victory conditions (except perhaps conquest) have any counterpart in the real world.

If it's true that the only votes you can get are from the city-states, then 40% may make sense from a gameplay point of view. It just sounds really cheap. I can't say it's unrealistic, because what we're talking about doesn't really exist.

 

[Schuesseled]

In real life, the UN is a powerless body and the position of Secretary General has no real authority, so that doesn't give us much to go on. Granted that none of the victory conditions (except perhaps conquest) have any counterpart in the real world.

diplomacy is probably the closest.

Culture, no, im not gonna follow barrack ombamas orders because of american films and music and buildings.

Space race, again no, america might colonise alpha centauri one day but then the russkis and the chineese would colonise other worlds, so in the end nothing really changes politcally.

Conquest, a war that leads to one nation controlling the world, not particuarly likely, possible, but conquests in our history tend to be temporary in the long-run

Diplomacy, the world uniting under a global democracy, under one ruler voted by 6 billion people, certainly could happen one day. Closest thing to a real civ victory in real life.

 

[DeepQantas]

Maybe you'll have a couple of turns to nuke the UN building if the vote isn't going your way...

 

[Vraslosken]

If it's true that the only votes you can get are from the city-states, then 40% may make sense from a gameplay point of view. It just sounds really cheap. I can't say it's unrealistic, because what we're talking about doesn't really exist.

Has it been said that votes will only come from city-states? I would guess that the UN would work somewhat like in the earlie games, that only a few civs would compete for victory, and the rest of the civs can be persuaded to vote for you.

EDIT: Ah, now i see this has been discussed further above in the thread.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

I ran into a screenshot of the spanish site juegosdb and it pretty confirmed my fears :

Spoiler :

Look at the happy jauge, it says 3/1500 and the net happiness output is 28 !
Then, a golden age just ended
It only make sense to have so few (3) if you can't replenish the jauge while in a golden age and the 3 is the overflow of the turn before the start of the GA.

Note also the advisor marks on the techs.

 

[Mercade]

Those advisor marks could be helpful. Purple for artist advisor and all that. Makes sense. Nice citadel in the screenshot, too.

Also from juegosdb is the following screenshot with an odd building a bit southeast of Istanbul. It looks like a variation on Chichen Itza, but not quite the same compared to the images on Arioch's site. It's lower with fewer stairs and the top looks different, too. I doubt it's part of the mine.

Spoiler :

 

[Grimlin]

Those advisor marks could be helpful. Purple for artist advisor and all that. Makes sense. Nice citadel in the screenshot, too.

Also from juegosdb is the following screenshot with an odd building a bit southeast of Istanbul. It looks like a variation on Chichen Itza, but not quite the same compared to the images on Arioch's site. It's lower with fewer stairs and the top looks different, too. I doubt it's part of the mine.

Spoiler :

Look at the construction if Istanbul, the wonder is under construction and not completed yet, that why it looks different.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Chicken Pizza WIP.

 

[Mercade]

Look at the construction if Istanbul, the wonder is under construction and not completed yet, that why it looks different.

Oh!!! Hadn't noticed that. Had this been observed before in this or other theads? So you see the actual wonder under construction in the field while the city is working on it. That's just another lovely little detail in Civ5.

 

[Thyrwyn]

looks like Chichen Itza under construction

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Oh!!! Hadn't noticed that. Had this been observed before in this or other theads? So you see the actual wonder under construction in the field while the city is working on it. That's just another lovely little detail in Civ5.

Month ago, we saw the Collossus under construction and, recently, the great wall as well.

 

[Schuesseled]

yes its under construction.

 

[Mercade]

Have we seen these goals before? It looks a bit like it's part of the build-in tutorial, but with those specific targets it may also be a quest that's been given by either the game or a City State or so...

 

[PinkHammurabi]

First that I've seen or heard of it, but it definitely looks tutorial (i.e. Settler difficulty) based.

 

[Sonereal]

Have we seen these goals before? It looks a bit like it's part of the build-in tutorial, but with those specific targets it may also be a quest that's been given by either the game or a City State or so...

It seems weird that a city-state would give you a quest to connect your own resources. It looks more like a tutorial.

 

[Schuesseled]

could be steam achievements or a new way of doing scenarios.

 

[Caeserportugal]

It sounds to me more of a tutorial me thinks.