BNW is the final expansion

To me the tech isn't really there to justify a Civ 6 yet. I think it will be X-Mas 2016 and if so then I'd get the junior developers to cut their teeth on new Civ 5 civs for a expansion next year.
 
Random events do not fit well in strategy game as you can't foresee them and include them in your long time plans. This is true especially if they are completely random. This was probably the reason why many disliked them in CIV.
Unless you're talking about chess, random elements (in particular, combat results) are key to nearly every good strategy game I've ever played. Without them, things become too deterministic, without any element of risk.
 
In strategy games with random events, you simply make plans that account for a potential random event. You include extra units in your attack. You keep enough funds in your coffers to cover loss of buildings. You keep workers on hand to repair improvements. You never stretch yourself thin enough that a random event will break you. It isn't that hard to figure out.

That being said, I am fine with not having them in Civ V.
 
Random events do not fit well in strategy game as you can't foresee them and include them in your long time plans. This is true especially if they are completely random. This was probably the reason why many disliked them in CIV.

I beg to differ. Strategy is about planning for the unforeseen, and that is what makes the games more interesting. If I always did "A" and got "B", the game would get boring really fast.

Random rolls for damage, random loot, random events are all things you should be taking into account in a strategy game. I think it is rather silly to say they do not fit.
 
Battle of Passchendale in WWI had been planned with all the details and massive artillery, tank etc. support.

But when the battle started, in Europe started too the rainiest, wettest summer in 30 years.
Whole battlefield became a muddy hell, hundreds of thousands casualties etc.

I think that was one unlucky random event! :wow:
 
I like some element of random events as long as it could be turned off like Barbarians can be.
 
I beg to differ. Strategy is about planning for the unforeseen, and that is what makes the games more interesting. If I always did "A" and got "B", the game would get boring really fast.

Random rolls for damage, random loot, random events are all things you should be taking into account in a strategy game. I think it is rather silly to say they do not fit.

Rolls of damage have certain probabilities and can be evaluated. Something that is completely random just makes a game more depended on luck and less on skills. There is a reason why random events are always turned off in HOF games.
 
Giving random events based on things you actually did (no volcanos, hurricanes, or tsunamis) could be interesting. If they added in a health mechanic that is affected by rapid production increases then plagues could have a percent chance based on that. These plagues could spread on trade routes or conquest which would work into the strategy element. Diplo changes for things like Civ 4 with religion could be cool too.
 
Rolls of damage have certain probabilities and can be evaluated. Something that is completely random just makes a game more depended on luck and less on skills. There is a reason why random events are always turned off in HOF games.

Damage, Ancient Ruins, Barbarian Camps, etc are still random. You cannot pick and choose what fits the argument against random events, then say it is not random because you can evaluate the outcome. Obviously for HOF games, they need some constant which is understandable. However, we are talking about a standard game of Civ.

A game should not be so predictable that you can tell if you can win outright so easily. I am not talking about your army getting malaria and dysentery at random, which causes you to lose 1/2 your military.

So let's use your argument. Built your city next to a volcano? That's an assumed risk, which you evaluated that it was worth the reward. That's a random event I can be okay with. (Frankly, it's a natural disaster and I'm cool with those.) Want to crank out coal plants for the extra production? Yeah, pollution/global warming is very much a random event that is coming, but again using your argument it was evaluated.

Civ4 had plenty of random events that were perfectly acceptable, but the frequency was a bit high. I enjoy Civ5 for what it is, but it lacks the flavor that the random events caused. The turns feel duller, and are easily predictable. About the only actual random event the game that feels truly random is figuring which turn the AI forgets to take their meds and backstab you. Despite having already evaluated that it is every turn.

Unfortunately, luck is a part of strategy. It takes skill to plan ahead for it, but I digress. Crap happens, but if one, even two bad events costs you the game, then you should lose. It sounds like some people would rather have an "always winnable" game. I am not asking for Civ: Hearts of Iron Edition, I am asking for Civ 5 with more random events.
 
There is a reason why random events are always turned off in HOF games.
Which shows the difference between playing a game for enjoyment, and playing for a score in a tournament. But since, as you point out, it can be turned off, it's quite possible to have such features for those who like them without distracting tournament players with any pesky fun.
 
Which shows the difference between playing a game for enjoyment, and playing for a score in a tournament. But since, as you point out, it can be turned off, it's quite possible to have such features for those who like them without distracting tournament players with any pesky fun.

To add to the fun, you can even toggle barbarians off. Technically, you can do this with CS too. :lol:
 
Be carefull when wishing for a civ6: Remember what happened to SimnCity?

It could happen to Civ too!
They could change the target group!
 
Be carefull when wishing for a civ6: Remember what happened to SimnCity?

It could happen to Civ too!
They could change the target group!

There's a major difference between Firaxis, who listens to their fans, and EA Games, who puppets Maxis into making game they want to make money most out of.
 
Unless you're talking about chess, random elements (in particular, combat results) are key to nearly every good strategy game I've ever played. Without them, things become too deterministic, without any element of risk.

StarCraft is a good example to your statement. It is arguably one of the best (realtime) strategy games on the PC, and contains basically no random elements. (For SC:BW, only initial placement and the miss chance for higher ground was random, neither of which was crucial to the game.)
 
Firaxis seems a bit like Paradox in that they are committed to producing a certain style of game and they understand what their market is. Firaxis tried DLC with Civ 5 but eventually went back to Expansions and I believe that was because they tested the market with DLC and found that the market preferred a large expansion with added game elements rather than just a few maps and a civ or two. I honestly don't see them rushing out a civ6 unless the tech is there to make the game significantly better than civ5 because they know that if they produce a sub-standard product it will hurt their sales and that the current product is still profitable.
 
Top Bottom