Civ 6?

[Menzies]

Yep, overpowered...

The current system is great and it should stay as it is.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

So we need poorly implemented mechanics for CiV too?

What's poorly implemented about corporations?

 

[Androrc the Orc]

Social policies could represent cultural development while civics cover political systems.

I love this idea!

 

[Lord Chambers]

What's poorly implemented about corporations?

1. They have the same mechanisms as religion.

2. They come too late to influence the outcome of the game. This is understandable since Beyond the Sword was focused on the end game. And in accepting that, corporations cannot also be a generally well integrated and satisfying game component since it is necessarily tacked on.

3. They are as likely to hurt you as help you. This is clever as a metaphor for a worldview, but as a gameplay mechanism kind of daft. Why bother going to the trouble when the corporation, already too late to impact most game outcomes, could just slow you down?

4. The answer is flavor. That's ultimately how corporations succeed, as roleplaying. As a strategical mechanism it provides little interesting.

 

[MkLh]

Range of archers & crossbows would be reduced from 2 hexes to 1 hex as well.

So instead of always having an archer behind a sword, those would be stacked, and the same set of moves given to advance sword one / advance archer one, fire archer and then attack with sword would be given.

Yes, stacking a ranged unit and a melee unit would be a no-brainer you would do every time. So what's the point of allowing it?

 

[aziantuntija]

I agree with MkLh and Menzies. Theres absolutely no point in allowing players to stack 2 units because it wouldnt just give you the option to stack em, it would just force you to stack em. And clearly thats a no-brainer. And as Menzies pointed out, it would also remove some of the strategy.

So we need poorly implemented mechanics for CiV too?

Im a bit curious, do you think that the colony system in BTS was also a poorly implemented mechanic?


EDIT: I dont know about you guys, but I would be happy to pay for well implemented colony system in civ5.

 

[joncnunn]

Yes, stacking a ranged unit and a melee unit would be a no-brainer you would do every time. So what's the point of allowing it?

Currently placing a ranged unit one hex behind the melee unit is a no brainer you should do every time. So what's the point of allowing it?

 

[aziantuntija]

Currently placing a ranged unit one hex behind the melee unit is a no brainer you should do every time. So what's the point of allowing it?

If enemy has 2 units in same tile (like spearman and archer), then it doesnt matter how many units you have, or where they are placed, since you must first defeat the spearmen to get to the archer. Also, if you would have 2 units per tile, then this means that in order to fully occupy a tile, you MUST build 2 units in it. This basicly means that 2 units in a tile is a full unit and that 1 unit in tile is a half unit. Whats the point in doing that? You might as well just fully occupy the whole hex with just 1 unit.

 

[ohioastronomy]

There have been many thoughtful critiques of Civ 5, and the single unifying thread in them is that the lack of stacking (on a strategic map) is an absolutely fatal flaw. The AI just can't cope with it, and it's inappropriate for the scale of the game. Furthermore, the needed adjustments in the rest of the game (to reduce production, for example) fouled up an elaborate balance in the rest of the system.

What any successor needs is a plausible illusion of a *simulation.* In other words, a game that approximates history vaguely. This includes elements like foreign trade, war exhaustion, meaningful diplomacy, and so on. It also needs decent AI, and this means a combat system where it's possible to design an intelligent algorithm. I'd go with "units limited by economy size", a modest stacking limit, and a separate tactical map with an autoresolve option.

Add in meaningful choices (e.g. less linear tech trees with differing starts), cut the clutter of excess building and units from Civ 4, etc. and it'll be a good synthesis. Figure out a way to make the endgame less painful and it'll be a winner.

 

[Aristos]

Currently placing a ranged unit one hex behind the melee unit is a no brainer you should do every time. So what's the point of allowing it?

It's NOT a no-brainer. AI has no brain, yet it still charges forward leading with archers, as of .511.

 

[RealHuhn]

There have been many thoughtful critiques of Civ 5, and the single unifying thread in them is that the lack of stacking (on a strategic map) is an absolutely fatal flaw. The AI just can't cope with it, and it's inappropriate for the scale of the game. Furthermore, the needed adjustments in the rest of the game (to reduce production, for example) fouled up an elaborate balance in the rest of the system.

What any successor needs is a plausible illusion of a *simulation.* In other words, a game that approximates history vaguely. This includes elements like foreign trade, war exhaustion, meaningful diplomacy, and so on. It also needs decent AI, and this means a combat system where it's possible to design an intelligent algorithm. I'd go with "units limited by economy size", a modest stacking limit, and a separate tactical map with an autoresolve option.

Add in meaningful choices (e.g. less linear tech trees with differing starts), cut the clutter of excess building and units from Civ 4, etc. and it'll be a good synthesis. Figure out a way to make the endgame less painful and it'll be a winner.

I agree 100%. The AI must be capable of using the combat system efficiently. If that's only possible with a return of stacks or limited stacks, then go for it.
Mechanics like foreign trade, war weariness, meaningful diplomacy etc. should return to make the game more immersive. A less streamlined tech tree and especially a more vertical tech tree with some significant differences depending on the path you take can guarantee a higher replayability and more different tactics, just overall more fun.

 

[PhilBowles]

The DLC isn't 'substantial' though. We get a couple of civs and three wonders.

And scenarios, remember.

Yes, I'd like more in DLC, but I'd be moderately happy just with added value from the existing content - such as the ability to play the scenarios in multiplayer, and access to the scenario maps in the main game, neither of which would add much extra development work.

Civ V has been using DLC instead.

I'm hoping for a more relaxed upt; (one melee type and one ranged type)
This would allow the primitive non-siege range units to have a range of one tile. (And be easier to code the defense AI to escort their ranged units)

There's nothing to be gained from reducing the range of archers - ranged units are valuable largely for their greater range than melee units (unsurprisingly). What I'd like to see is allowing unlimited non-combat units (GPs, Settlers and Workers) to stack, since stacking was removed to deal with stacks of doom to which these units don't contribute, none have cumulative effects, and it improves 'pathing', as well as limiting those annoying situations where a worker will find itself blocked by another.

Honestly, the only game I've ever seen do well with DLC is the revitalized Bethesda Fallout games, adding substantial parts of the games with their own unique atmosphere's, instead of just shoving in a new gun and charging 5 bucks for it.

Haven't seen Fallout, but Civ V DLC is pretty much the best DLC I have seen aside from Total War campaign DLC - and no, that's not high praise for Civ V but a sad comment on the competition.

I really hope Sarmatian is right and that the poor quality of CiV and lack of expansion pack will prompt a quicker release of the next installment, hopefully with new people leading the development (or another studio, gogo Blizzard).

People are moaning that the game's been out for over a year without an expansion, so you'd recommend offering it to ... Blizzard? Blizzard will take two or more years over an expansion if you're lucky.

If you're unlucky it will sell you one with Kung Fu Pandas.

 

[krc]

There's nothing to be gained from reducing the range of archers - ranged units are valuable largely for their greater range than melee units (unsurprisingly).

Not quite. Ranged units (even if they can only fire into an adjacent hex) remain useful for two reasons. First, they take no damage when attacking. Second, when they eliminate an enemy unit, they do not have to advance. They can stay on the hilltop instead of moving down into the plains where they are much more likely to die in the counterattack.

 

[krc]

People are moaning that the game's been out for over a year without an expansion, so you'd recommend offering it to ... Blizzard? Blizzard will take two or more years over an expansion if you're lucky.

If you're unlucky it will sell you one with Kung Fu Pandas.

Can Kung Fu Pandas defeat Giant Death Robots? What resources do they require?

 

[PSPSoldier534]

And scenarios, remember.

Yes, I'd like more in DLC, but I'd be moderately happy just with added value from the existing content - such as the ability to play the scenarios in multiplayer, and access to the scenario maps in the main game, neither of which would add much extra development work.

I wholeheartedly agree.

There's nothing to be gained from reducing the range of archers - ranged units are valuable largely for their greater range than melee units (unsurprisingly). What I'd like to see is allowing unlimited non-combat units (GPs, Settlers and Workers) to stack, since stacking was removed to deal with stacks of doom to which these units don't contribute, none have cumulative effects, and it improves 'pathing', as well as limiting those annoying situations where a worker will find itself blocked by another.

This is spot on. The point of a ranged unit is to hit targets indirectly, making them more vulnerable to a direct attack. That's part of why I didn't build artillery in Civ 4. They would be obliterated in direct combat, since there was no ranged bombardment without mods.

Haven't seen Fallout, but Civ V DLC is pretty much the best DLC I have seen aside from Total War campaign DLC - and no, that's not high praise for Civ V but a sad comment on the competition.

Trust me... Fallout is great (possibly one of the best games I've ever played) and the DLC is unmatched. You should look into it and see for yourself.

People are moaning that the game's been out for over a year without an expansion, so you'd recommend offering it to ... Blizzard? Blizzard will take two or more years over an expansion if you're lucky.

If you're unlucky it will sell you one with Kung Fu Pandas.

Ha.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Haven't seen Fallout, but Civ V DLC is pretty much the best DLC I have seen aside from Total War campaign DLC - and no, that's not high praise for Civ V but a sad comment on the competition.

Fallout DLC is great, for the New Vegas DLC's the content is about equal to 2 expansion packs shipped over 4 or 5 different DLC's, a lesser studio then Bethesda could even have made 5 expansion packs with it.
From what I understand though, most DLC is a couple of extra levels and a new color for whatever your playing as, so I get the sentiment.

People are moaning that the game's been out for over a year without an expansion, so you'd recommend offering it to ... Blizzard? Blizzard will take two or more years over an expansion if you're lucky.

If you're unlucky it will sell you one with Kung Fu Pandas.

But they will always actually release expansions, giving you more value for your initial purchase, and Blizzards design philosophy is about the same as Valves, release it when we are completely satisfied with our product, an absolutely unmatched strategy as they are most the most renowned and consistent producers of quality material.

I'd prefer CiV if they released it today, completely fixed, then trying to patch it post release but failing because it's not cost effective anymore.

And I'm not sure if your referring to the Frozen Throne expansion or something from WoW (which I did not play) but if it's the former, the Frozen Throne was a fantastic expansion, adding a campaign close in length to that of Reign of Chaos, significant improvements to the armor system and a good amount of extra units and mechanics.
CiV would be lucky if it got an expansion like that, even if it included panda's.

 

[Camikaze]

Fixing a game doesn't suddenly become more cost effective because it hasn't been released. If it's cost effective to fix bugs prior to release, then it's cost effective to fix them post release. Especially with DLC an important part of the business model. This is what we've seen with Civ5.

The problem with releasing earlier is that it can leave a bad taste in your mouth, as it did with Civ5 for a lot of people. A lot of people who may have enjoyed the game had their first experience with not been full of glitches and balance issues.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

If you fix the game before it is released people's initial opinions will be better, i.e. more people will buy it more based on personal recomendations and honest reviews.
If it has already been released you fixing the bug will at most convince a few people that where doubtful over whether or not to get the game, the bad reviews and dissapointed friends have already been heard.

And DLC should be irrelevant for patches

 

[Camikaze]

People aren't going to buy DLC though if they don't enjoy the game. Sales aren't finished with the initial release, so there is still a need to fix bugs and gameplay issues to continue driving them.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

Not much of a need though, unless your planning on making massive game changing DLC's (which was obviously not the intention here) this is only a minor source of revenue, most money is made from the initial sale.

I think they where going for the TF2 model of DLC's, give people hats and hope they're stupid enough to buy them, unlike TF2 the core of this game is broken though.