Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by brewgod, Jan 18, 2012.
The current system is great and it should stay as it is.
What's poorly implemented about corporations?
I love this idea!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's NOT a no-brainer. AI has no brain, yet it still charges forward leading with archers, as of .511.
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.
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.
Can Kung Fu Pandas defeat Giant Death Robots? What resources do they require?
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.
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
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.