Biggest problem this game still faces

[Makavcio]

The importance of science is annoying.

It's not as if the Maya came up with the zero because a lot of smart guys sat down in a circle and said "let's invent something new." Romans didn't create their grand structures as research projects. Culture guides science, but there is no importance of our civ's culture on science (except the rationalism tree, but, trust me, the Romans were mixing concrete WAY before the Renaissance.)

Religion has quite a bit to do with science. People look for answers and discover things. Heck, Europe was passively destroying knowledge from ancient Greece and Rome in order to write religious texts, while the Muslim work was actively saving many of the same texts for religious (educational) purposes. In the game, there are a total of two beliefs that can give science.

War has had a massive impact on science. Again, people didn't sit around and say "hey, let's make iron stronger just because iron is cool" or "you know what, I want to create a bomb from that radioactive stuff because...fireworks!" only to later see the use of that technology in weapons. In the real world, war leads to an insane percentage of research. In the game, science is the primary, war comes as a result.

Science doesn't happen for the sake of science, ever. It happens because pure science is valued culturally (as in ancient Greece), religiously (as in the middle ages), or for practical reasons (such as ancient Rome). In the game, science happens because...science is science and it's how you win.

Yeah... You are mixing here some facts, common beliefs (aka myths) and misconceptions. All this comes from the fact that you are looking at things from the perspective of modern man and you confuse general science, the process of discovery and advancement, with science defined in modern terms, i.e.: organized application of scientific method undertaken in order to achieve previously defined goals.

First of all, war does not cause technological improvement - it puts bigger pressure on people to get technological advantage over others. Using the approach from your post: "I guess we could use something stronger than copper and it would make several aspects of our lives slightly easier, but it's too much of a hassle now... The good, ol' copper will do. But wait! The evil Ruskies are coming to eat us? In this case, let's better invent this UberCopper!"

Also, culture, religion and science are not three different aspects of civilizations. Such separation is a trait of the modern Western civilization. It doesn't exist in Arabic word and is only nascent in China or in India. Most of our (Western) problems with Muslims are caused by the fact that our societies can't comprehend this fact. It's silly, because this separation was born in Renaissance and became a wide-spread fact only during French Revolution. The XXth century was the first century when such view of the world became natural to us.

I don't really have time now to address all the misconceptions in your post. Even the paragraph above requires a much broader perspective... Just one more thing:
"Science", as we call it today, did happen for science's sake, or in other words: it was valued culturally, as you put it, even though you make an incomprehensible distinction between these 2 things. Value, or the whole axiology in general, is a derivative of culture, so if we attribute value to anything, it's always a cultural process.
Ancient philosophy often shunned practical applications of "science" and even nowadays we very often work just to expand our understanding of reality. Large Hadron Collider is a great example of this fact. We have no religious or immediate practical reasons for that; we are trying to validate a theory.

PS.
Technological advancement in medieval era had theological background? That's something new to me and I have a decent background in medieval philosophy. There's a reason why we call it "Christian dark ages". Maybe you were referring to Muslim world or the Far East?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think you're hurting your poll a bit because the options overlap:

- Diplomacy and "Dumb AI" are not identical, but they have a significant amount of overlap.
- "Tall Empire Bias", "Predictable End Game", and "Science >>> Everything" are also not identical, but tie into each other.
- Similarly, the warmonger penalty is a factor in tall empire bias and vice versa

As usual, it saddens me to see turn times largely ignored as a serious issue, but then again one could make a valid case that more people consider it an issue, but less of one than some of the current design issues. Hmm.

Were the previous game that much less science driven ?

If you had a large empire and good production, it was easily possible to overwhelm the AI on even the highest difficulties in previous games. They were not nearly as science driven, though it was still a very important factor.

 

[Teproc]

The "dark ages" denomination is somewhat of a fallacy, one that is caused by the bias that you mention about us now having troubles understanding religious societies. The medieval era was above all defined by the mingling of religious and political power (talking about the Western world, I am unfortunately clueless otherwise).

And what's this about ancient philosophy shunning practical applications of science ? Science and philosophy were practically undistinguishable in the ancient and classical era. Sure, metaphysics was deemed to be the ultimate discipline, but Aristotle nonetheless devoted a great part of his writings to observing and classifying the animal world, and you also have people like Galen or Sextus Empiricus who were both philosophers and doctors.

 

[MantaRevan]

The "dark ages" denomination is somewhat of a fallacy, one that is caused by the bias that you mention about us now having troubles understanding religious societies. The medieval era was above all defined by the mingling of religious and political power (talking about the Western world, I am unfortunately clueless otherwise).

And what's this about ancient philosophy shunning practical applications of science ? Science and philosophy were practically undistinguishable in the ancient and classical era. Sure, metaphysics was deemed to be the ultimate discipline, but Aristotle nonetheless devoted a great part of his writings to observing and classifying the animal world, and you also have people like Galen or Sextus Empiricus who were both philosophers and doctors.

Guys, we're trying to discuss the major ways this game can be improved, not the origin or nature of science. It seems to be consensus that as it stands, science outweighs all other in-game values, but you should be discussing that- not this.

 

[MantaRevan]

I agree that Wide empires need to be accommodated. At least before BNW they didn't have some massive science penalty working against them. Civ 5 is a game, and games are supposed to be fun. Deity tradition turtling isn't fun. In fact, some of the most fun aspects of the game such as expansion and conquest are discouraged pretty ridiculously. People always talk about "conquering the world" when they're play civ, but in reality how often are you doing that? A ridiculously strong and long-lasting warmonger penalty makes it so that unless you're playing domination(and from a strategic point of view, why would you want to...?) you want to avoid capturing cities at all costs.

 

[Ikael]

Tall VS Wide: It varies a lot from one expansion to another, but BNW is clearly slanted towards tall & peaceful, me thinks, as opposed to the ICS warmonger madness of vainilla Civ V. This is, however, a minor fault that could be easily addressed by tweaking the social policies and the tech penalty per city, me thinks.

Science VS everything: Or the unintended consequence of removing tech-trading. The crappy SP tree balance only makes it worse.

Boring endgame: A consequence of the "science VS everything" flaw. Runaway civs become more runaway than ever, so to speak. But to be fair, this is a chronic disease of the series: sucess must be rewarded but it shouldn't be permanent, me thinks. This is a very interesting game design challenge for the future.

Diplomacy: I must recognice that BNW gave it a much needed spice, but it is still lacking, specially when it comes to Cassus Belli systems

 

[FromBirth]

I voted other.

There's nothing to combat the increased science requirements for each extra city, this would perhaps fall under 'tall city bias' but I want to tie it in to another point...
Certain SPs are must haves, others (piety, honout etc.) not so much. Perhaps something in these to balance out science penalties?
Since fall patch BNW, I'm finding there's very little early military threat and that in general AI civs are much more reluctant to DoW as they think they have too much to lose. (I play Emperor level). It take a little of the initial nervousness out of the first 50 or so turns.

On the whole though, I love the game and the fall patch made me think a bit more when playing Emperor level. I still win every time but it's more fun and challenging now.

 

[UWHabs]

Science is such a big focus in the game, that it truly does overrule everything. But I don't think that's a flaw.

I can overcome someone else being ahead in science due to tactics and being smarter about things. Yes, that means eventually getting caught up in science, but I don't think that's the flaw. But there are certain things that I think would help the science business, taken from previous games:

1. Blind research. I think that would be a big change. If not blind research, then I'd say 50% of the science you gain should be divided randomly between eligible techs. Means you can't beeline nearly as well, and you really are better to catch up on earlier techs than in getting too far ahead.
2. Diverse and expanded tech tree. It's nice to get new wonders, new units, and new buildings all together. But it makes certain techs too valuable. Maybe if each tech only granted one thing, then you need to go through a more elaborate choice in what to pick.
Or maybe if you split the tech tree into 2 lines: Theoretical and Applied. You pick your research towards theoretical techs, but they actually give you nothing on their own. Just because your civ discovers how to work with Iron it seems weird that it immediately can equip an army with swords. Really you should discover Iron Working, and then only a few turns later do you realize how to mold that into swords. You discover how to write, and then later you realize that it benefits the empire to organize those writings in an accessible location.

There's more stuff with this that could improve how science is done in the game. Maybe have more bonuses for certain areas (can you imagine if each swordsman you built gave you science towards longswords?). But I still don't feel that this is the biggest problem. Science is the fundamental aspect of the game. While I'd like to say it's the biggest flaw, I think it's more just something that can be tweaked, I don't consider it a real problem.

The AI I find is the worse case. I know that I should be smarter than the average AI, but sometimes I just see cases that make me cringe. For example, I just caught Beijing in my last game, probably 1500 AD, give or take. What did I find? 4 un-improved Whales. I know the AI gets happiness benefits, but how do you not improve the resources, even just to get the extra food or commerce or whatever from them? I think Sweden had a similar case, where they hadn't built any camps around their capital on deer. Stuff like that just makes me sad. I want to beat a real AI, not one that just cripples themselves.

 

[Teproc]

Blind research would be interesting. Maybe it could depend on what you already have. If you have a lot of units, you have a higher chance of getting a military tech and so on. The problem is I think you have to introduce some amount of randomness if you want to do blind research, and that can be very frustrating.

 

[Zaimejs]

Blind research would be interesting. Maybe it could depend on what you already have. If you have a lot of units, you have a higher chance of getting a military tech and so on. The problem is I think you have to introduce some amount of randomness if you want to do blind research, and that can be very frustrating.

I really like two ideas I've read here today. This one... Blind Science. What a cool idea. I mean, how much control does the head of a civilization have over what technologies emerge? You can push toward a general goal (moon landing, atomic weapon, gunpowder, navigation), but science is fueled by commerce and many other factors. Maybe if science were also a bit more related to cash... because countries with cash can afford to BUY research. That would add a bit to the game. You could buy research from other civs... or just pour money into research in your own civ.

You could also balance science a bit with city states. They are sometimes ahead of me in certain techs. If they are my allies, wouldn't they be willing to share that tech? This would give another way to gain science other than straight research.

Another idea I really liked was the military science gains. It would make sense. If shoot down a helicopter with some archers (one in a thousand chance), I could certainly figure out how to build a better weapon by looking at the parts of the helicopter. What a great way to balance science and military. When I played as Shaka, I was way behind in science... I only caught up after I conquered some peacemongers... but man, it would have been cool to kill a rifleman, and then have my spearman pick up that gun and be able to use it. Right?

Great ideas out there for balancing science with other game mechanics!

These, however, do not make the AI smarter.

 

[Rooftrellen]

@Roofreelen : All of this is true obviously. I don't see how you could implement a realistic version of scientific progress though. To me, the tech tree and the resulting focus Civ has on science is simply a necessary evil.

Making Civ totally a reflection of the real world would be impossible and unfun. I don't claim to come with a solution, just that I see a big flaw. I'm not sure it would be POSSIBLE under the current setup to change things to allow science to flow differently based on the way science comes to be, even with regard to what is already in the game.

I do think it's the biggest problem still in the game, however. It's not a massive problem that prevents me from enjoying the game, but the game could be more fun with less of a focus on tech.


@Makavcio

We could have a 100 page thread on science and it's history, and I have to agree with MantaRevan that this isn't the place for it. I will admit that most of my knowledge is based more in ancient history (though I know someone who studies the early "dark ages" and would slap me if he knew I used the term) but for the vast majority of history, science was a pastime, scientists more like stamp collectors than construction workers.

The importance placed on science in the game doesn't match this reality at all. When you can build your first university, the real choices (in Europe) at that time would have been medicine, law, or theology, and, honestly, that holds true up to basically the Modern Era. When Teddy Roosevelt helped explore the Amazon, he didn't look at the plants and think science (as universities give you in game). He wrote about how much of an awesome global power Brazil would be when they chopped down that useless forest and built factories.

Universities providing science for jungle is a small thing, but it shows how influenced science in the game is based on our current understanding of science (as is the extreme emphasis on recent technologies...NOTHING in the last 3 or 4 eras was as important to human history as the codex, which isn't in the game at all), of how we learn to do things better. Though most of history, learning was for the betterment of a man, not mankind.

Which is to say there is a science overload in the game.

 

[sendos]

The Blind research idea is excellent and it also gave me nostalgic memories of SMAC (it has the blind research option where you choose between conquer, build, explore and discover by crossing the boxes if you want a combined approach or crossing all boxes or not crossing any boxes to take a random approach). To expand on this idea, the next civ 5 patch could add a blind research option (in case this irritates a majority of players). Instead of choosing specific techs or random tech researching, you can regulate it like in SMAC. In fact, you could use the same theme from SMAC:
- conquer: aiming for military techs
- Explore: aiming for naval techs
- Discover: aiming for science techs
- Build: aiming for everything else

You could expand this theme for religion, economy, etc.

Moving on from science in general, I think SP's need more attention, especially related to liberty and promoting wide empires again as well as science. Meritocracy should boost city connection gpt and trade route gpt in all cities by 10% and the liberty finisher should reduce science penalty by 33%-50%. As for honor, piety and exploration, they also need to be improved and I wish to post my recommendation for improving these policies in a new thread. As for rationalism being a must-have SP tree, it could be nerfed in 2 ways: add modest downgrades or reduce the benefits (e.g. secularism would provide +1 science per specialist not 2).

 

[Peng Qi]

@Roofreelen : All of this is true obviously. I don't see how you could implement a realistic version of scientific progress though. To me, the tech tree and the resulting focus Civ has on science is simply a necessary evil.

Tech tree is broken right now, though, with Great War Bombers and ranged units dominating everything due to no real counters coming early enough.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Other: Too small maps + 1UPT mechanic results in tedious carpets of doom.

The only part of the game where the 1UPT system really works is the ACW scenario, where cities are dozens of hexes away from each other and you have enough space for maneuvering.

 

[YetiHunter84]

Get rid of ZOC, or at least nerf it to a movement penalty like GW. Why does that enemy unit magically slow me down anyway? I guess the argument is that it prevents unrealistic penetration behind enemy lines, and forces engagement. But going behind lines is always going to be a risky if not suicidal strategy anyway. Kill ZOC and you fix archers>>>>>everything. Forces the player to use a line of pikes rather than a single pike to protect archers from knights. Much more realistic.

 

[bc1]

I am amazed that "dumb AI" is not far and away #1 priority... This can only mean one thing, btw

 

[Strategist83]

Heh. Looking at this thread just reminds me of how fantastic Europa Universalis IV is, and how much V could (and should) learn from it. Firaxis' creation is a kid's game, really, not a game for adults. I hope this changes with VI because even those players who are really kids would enjoy a grownup game more.

Voted warmonger penalty just because I hate it so much, but it could have been any of the other excellent poll options. Nice thread OP.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Heh. Looking at this thread just reminds me of how fantastic Europa Universalis IV is, and how much V could (and should) learn from it. Firaxis' creation is a kid's game, really, not a game for adults.

That seems like an odd comparison. As a long-time EU player I'd say that EU4 has A LOT of pretty signifant issues regarding balancing, gameplay and even game design - and most of those will probably never be resolved.

I'd say that EU4 does forfeit even more potential than CIV5 - and while CIV5 is truly a new game, EU4 is more like EU3.5, an iteration of a working concept with just adding a few new mechanics here and there.

And as for the kids game aspect... I don't know. Yeah, CIV5 is bright, colorful and has a cheery vibe, but I don't think its childish. I'd call it... "a boardgame like" feel? I don't know. A game about civilization and history doesn't necessarily have to be gritty and dark.

 

[bc1]

EU4 does feel a lot like EU3.1 but they have a game format which is easier to play by the AI. The problem with Civ V is that it's difficult for an AI to play it well: at the tactical level with the one unit per hex rule, and the strategic level with the random map (which is a key Civ strength). Also the Civ V AI is not helped by the fact that the Civ V data model is messy...

 

[Vitruvius]

Anyone feel that food is overpowered and that science should not be a function of population size?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk