CiV at PAX East, let's wait!

[ShaqFu]

I was at the 3:30 demo on Saturday. Most of what was discussed has already been talked about, but there's a few other things that merit mentioning:

-The notification icons replace the text box and "choose research/production" windows of Civ4, making it easier to track and less distracting. The example given was a large military operation where the player is suddenly whisked back to their capital because it built a Worker; instead, you can keep focusing on your war and deal with building/research on your time. As someone that's had their military concentration broken by "Paris has built Settlers," this is a welcome change.

-Individual military units matter more, since they're more expensive and can't be stacked. You can now get in a Peloponnesean War situation where prolonged conflicts trash your economy*, and a few advanced units matter more than a swarm of Axemen in 800 AD. One reason given for this makes a fair amount of sense: it's a lot cooler to have one unit that sticks around, fights a lot of battles, defends a lot of area, etc. than big stacks of generic cannon fodder units.

-Navies have been redone. Instead of building transports, loading them up with troops, putting a frigate or two in the stack, and sailing off, you'll require larger fleets. Instead of building transports, each unit can move onto a sea tile (after getting the proper tech) and become a Civilian Transport, with 0 attack. Since you can stack Civilian and Military units, you can either leave it undefended and explore, or put a battleship on top for defense. If you're planning on a large naval expedition, it'll take more military ships (and intelligent maneuvers to get the most out of them) than before.

-Religion is gone, but Firaxis isn't leaving a "big smoking hole" in its place. It sounds like they're adding something, but there was no mention as to what.

-UUs are designed to be more unique than before. No more civs getting Musketmen that are +x% better against Cannon; my guess is that we'll see more units like the Keshik and Praetorian**.

-They couldn't discuss a lot of the details (UUs, leader traits, wonders, etc) because a lot just isn't finalized yet. Someone asked about building a Panama Canal, and the speakers paused for a moment, so I'm guessing there's some Canal wonder in the game (right now - it could be axed later).

As a whole, it sounds like Civ5 is designed to be a lot less gamey than its predecessors. By taking out things like the diplomacy modifier (no more +/-ing your way to peace) and tech trading (no more abusing the AI to do your research for you), it sounds like Civ5 games will be more historical and less playing the system. I'm extremely excited for it.

Re: The modifier. I'm all in favor of taking it away and making the AI more rational. If I have a flourishing trade with my neighbor, don't have border issues, don't bother their city-states, and have a research agreement in the works, and I see them building a large army, there's no need for a magic +/- to tell me they won't invade me. Similarly, if I've been antagonizing an AI since 4000 BC (or they've been antagonizing me!) I should have a garrison along my border. If it's been somewhere in between, I'll have to guess based on what I know (do they want a resource I have? Am I bothering their city-states? Is someone else annoying them?). Much more interesting than gaming a number and immediately knowing if I'm at risk. One of the big things Firaxis talked about was that playing the AI should be like playing your friends, not machines; the modifier makes it more the latter.

*Not that this couldn't happen in Civ4, but it sounds like the tipping point is a lot lower now.
**Although hopefully better balanced

 

[Ed_]

I was at the 3:30 demo on Saturday. Most of what was discussed has already been talked about, but there's a few other things that merit mentioning:

-The notification icons replace the text box and "choose research/production" windows of Civ4, making it easier to track and less distracting. The example given was a large military operation where the player is suddenly whisked back to their capital because it built a Worker; instead, you can keep focusing on your war and deal with building/research on your time. As someone that's had their military concentration broken by "Paris has built Settlers," this is a welcome change.

-Individual military units matter more, since they're more expensive and can't be stacked. You can now get in a Peloponnesean War situation where prolonged conflicts trash your economy*, and a few advanced units matter more than a swarm of Axemen in 800 AD. One reason given for this makes a fair amount of sense: it's a lot cooler to have one unit that sticks around, fights a lot of battles, defends a lot of area, etc. than big stacks of generic cannon fodder units.

-Navies have been redone. Instead of building transports, loading them up with troops, putting a frigate or two in the stack, and sailing off, you'll require larger fleets. Instead of building transports, each unit can move onto a sea tile (after getting the proper tech) and become a Civilian Transport, with 0 attack. Since you can stack Civilian and Military units, you can either leave it undefended and explore, or put a battleship on top for defense. If you're planning on a large naval expedition, it'll take more military ships (and intelligent maneuvers to get the most out of them) than before.

-Religion is gone, but Firaxis isn't leaving a "big smoking hole" in its place. It sounds like they're adding something, but there was no mention as to what.

-UUs are designed to be more unique than before. No more civs getting Musketmen that are +x% better against Cannon; my guess is that we'll see more units like the Keshik and Praetorian**.

-They couldn't discuss a lot of the details (UUs, leader traits, wonders, etc) because a lot just isn't finalized yet. Someone asked about building a Panama Canal, and the speakers paused for a moment, so I'm guessing there's some Canal wonder in the game (right now - it could be axed later).

As a whole, it sounds like Civ5 is designed to be a lot less gamey than its predecessors. By taking out things like the diplomacy modifier (no more +/-ing your way to peace) and tech trading (no more abusing the AI to do your research for you), it sounds like Civ5 games will be more historical and less playing the system. I'm extremely excited for it.

Re: The modifier. I'm all in favor of taking it away and making the AI more rational. If I have a flourishing trade with my neighbor, don't have border issues, don't bother their city-states, and have a research agreement in the works, and I see them building a large army, there's no need for a magic +/- to tell me they won't invade me. Similarly, if I've been antagonizing an AI since 4000 BC (or they've been antagonizing me!) I should have a garrison along my border. If it's been somewhere in between, I'll have to guess based on what I know (do they want a resource I have? Am I bothering their city-states? Is someone else annoying them?). Much more interesting than gaming a number and immediately knowing if I'm at risk. One of the big things Firaxis talked about was that playing the AI should be like playing your friends, not machines; the modifier makes it more the latter.

*Not that this couldn't happen in Civ4, but it sounds like the tipping point is a lot lower now.
**Although hopefully better balanced

Thanks for sharing your information with the community. I appreciate any trickle of information I can get!

 

[V. Soma]

Thanks, ShaqFu!

 

[Gliese 581]

Guys we don't know yet what will replace the +/- modifiers. I feel that it will be great as long as Firaxis find the right balance between information and uncertainty.
I agree that we need to know what things do, like production, unit stats etc. As to the reason an AI behaves a certain way, we need to have at least a rough idea of what AI leaders think of us, and why. This could very well be given in some other form than numbers, such as text or verbal from advisors (though I agree the latter would probably get annoying fast).

Also I think more hidden AI gives an excellent opportunity to introduce a really awesome espionage system that could be vital to determining what your neighbours are up to. For example instead of just scouting enemy units and cities they might be able to obtain information directly from AI leaders or advisors where they explicity talks about how they feel about various issues and what they're planning.

One thing that will probably contribute to giving you more information than in cIV is that AIs seem much more aware of border issues from what weäve heard, such as units moving close to a border. Presumably this would work boths ways and an AI that wanted to keep good relations with you is not going to mobilize right next to your border like they might do in cIV. Also unit building could be very different. In cIV the AI spams units especially on the higher levels and then just move them around. Perhaps they wont be spamming units unless they plan to using them in some fashion. It would be great if you could tell a neighbour "hey stop building units or we will take it as a sign of aggression" and their response could be quite telling.

The way I see it civ games are not games of perfect information like chess. If they were we would have full visibility of map from start and see everything the AI was doing including what it's building, teching and so on with no espionage needed. The trick is to find the right balance between information and guesswork where you can make educated guesses based on experience and skill but where you're not just dealing with a mathematical equation but actually a psychology artificial though it may be, which is never an exact science. Also as I mentioned above it would be great if there were specific mecahnics like espionage that affected the degree of knowledge we can have, at a price of course.

 

[V. Soma]

Guys we don't know yet what will replace the +/- modifiers. I feel that it will be great as long as Firaxis find the right balance between information and uncertainty.

...

Also I think more hidden AI gives an excellent opportunity to introduce a really awesome espionage system that could be vital to determining what your neighbours are up to. For example instead of just scouting enemy units and cities they might be able to obtain information directly from AI leaders or advisors where they explicity talks about how they feel about various issues and what they're planning.

Yes.

Let's hope for the best.

 

[Thyrwyn]

This, exactly

. . . The trick is to find the right balance between information and guesswork . . .

 

[Shurdus]

@ShaqFu
Thanks that is some useful info. However, the fanatics like us will dive straight into the code and soon enough we will know exactly what we can and cannot expect from an AI. Even if the magical modifiers are gone we will know soon enough what to expect, people will even keep advanced spreadsheets to look for patterns if they have to, but we will know how to play the system within a few months after release.

 

[ShaqFu]

I totally forgot to mention one of the coolest changes in Civ5: interdiction. I discussed it in the interview thread, but it bears repeating here:

Certain units (I saw archers in the demo, and I'm assuming artillery/bombers/ships can also) can interdict enemy units on the enemy's turn. If you're familiar with this mechanic from other games, you'll understand why this is important; if not, it's easy to explain. If I have an archer fortifying a hex, and an enemy moves within interdiction range (likely one tile for land and more for air/sea), my archer will attack him on his turn with no chance of retaliation. This solves the problem of needing a solid wall of units to maintain border defense, since you can put some archers on hills and let them interdict any barbarians/small invasions that come in. It's a nice addition to the historicalness of the game (Rome didn't have an unbroken wall of legions along the Danube!) and the gameplay itself.

@ShaqFu
Thanks that is some useful info. However, the fanatics like us will dive straight into the code and soon enough we will know exactly what we can and cannot expect from an AI. Even if the magical modifiers are gone we will know soon enough what to expect, people will even keep advanced spreadsheets to look for patterns if they have to, but we will know how to play the system within a few months after release.

Of course, after time, we'll have figured out what makes the AI tick. The AI, despite being more "organic" than before, is still a machine; if you delve into the code long enough, you'll know what the tipping point for war/peace is. I'm not saying that the system can't be gamed, just that it's designed to feel less gamey.

 

[moscaverde]

If I understood correctly, Civ 5 interdiction is alike the Civ 3 ZOC; a great information, as it is something that I always said should return to the Civ games.

 

[Gliese 581]

That's interesting about interdiction. Panzer General is slightly different in that regard in that certain units acts as supports to adjacent units. For example an artillery behind an infantery would fire on anyone attacking the infantery (usually to devastating effect), this often made it necessary to get rid of the artillery first somehow, either by flanking and attack it, or attack it with your own artillery, bombers or ships. Similarly a fighter would act as an escort to other planes and fire upon an attacker that attacked an adjacent unit.
However, simply moving into range would not cause enemy units to fire as seems to be the case for ciV.

 

[vidion]

The interdiction sounds great. But is this something associated to the unit or a task that you set the unit to do (like sentry duty). If the archer has used up all his movement points at the end of your turn, will it still be able to interdict.

 

[Ahriman]

If the archer has used up all his movement points at the end of your turn, will it still be able to interdict.

I'd hope not. Otherwise a melee unit could chase an archer unit forever, suffering the interdiction shot every turn, without ever being able to catch it.

 

[civ_king]

Zoc ftw!!!!

 

[Dale]

ZOC and Interdiction are really two different concepts. I'd hate ZOC but interdiction is cool.

 

[Gliese 581]

Melee could still run down archers with the help of terrain if movement costs are associated with it. In any case they will just start conquering cities if the archers never stop. Also cavalry will probably be good for hunting down archers if they behave in this way.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

We also know from other info provided by the developers that ranged units will automatically provide cover for adjacent units when said units are defending from an attack. So, as I understand it, if you have archers adjacent to swordsmen-& those swordsmen get attacked by enemy spears-then the archers will launch a volley against the spears *prior* to them attacking the swordsmen. This is different from-but related to-the idea of interdiction. Both concepts sound way, way better than anything we've had in previous games (Civ2 ZoC simply SUCKED!)

 

[Gliese 581]

We also know from other info provided by the developers that ranged units will automatically provide cover for adjacent units when said units are defending from an attack. So, as I understand it, if you have archers adjacent to swordsmen-& those swordsmen get attacked by enemy spears-then the archers will launch a volley against the spears *prior* to them attacking the swordsmen. This is different from-but related to-the idea of interdiction. Both concepts sound way, way better than anything we've had in previous games (Civ2 ZoC simply SUCKED!)

Ah yes covering fire as in PG as well then I see.

 

[PieceOfMind]

@ShaqFu
Thanks that is some useful info. However, the fanatics like us will dive straight into the code and soon enough we will know exactly what we can and cannot expect from an AI. Even if the magical modifiers are gone we will know soon enough what to expect, people will even keep advanced spreadsheets to look for patterns if they have to, but we will know how to play the system within a few months after release.

You seem to be assuming the code will even be available at release. Unless it has been stated by the dev somewhere (which I would like to see pointed out to me if so) I would expect the source code will not be available right away. If I understand correctly, the code was not immediately available for Civ4 - only the XML and python.

So it's possible we will only be able to work out some things by looking at the code, and if there's anything we won't be able to work out straight away, AI behaviour will be one of them (usually residing in the source code).

 

[Ahriman]

The diplomacy modifiers for various leaders in Civ4 is all in XML.

 

[PieceOfMind]

The diplomacy modifiers for various leaders in Civ4 is all in XML.

Yes but how they are controlled is not in the XML. That has to be in either python or source code, and I couldn't tell you for sure how it works because I haven't looked.

But I do know that there are still some hidden modifiers in Civ4 such that you couldn't always tell what diplo level someone would be with you based solely off the sum of their numbers.

If you were to study the history of how fast people learned how diplo worked, I think you'd find it wasn't completely revealed until at least the source code was released (I think it was about 6 months after release). Before then you can only make good guesses about how it works based on XML values and perhaps some python (or in Civ5 LUA) code.