Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Flavorable, Sep 23, 2010.
Pangea is crutch.
Well, Naval invasions in CIV are kinda just hopeless.
I agree with this BUT would argue that the comparison between civics and social policy is not apt. Civics are dynamic answers to strategic decision questions, social policies are static answers to strategic questions. I'd say social policies are more like traits you build upon throughout the game by doing things and can't compare at all to civics in a lot of ways. I also find it disheartening there isn't a dynamic strategy mechanism at the civ wide level such as governance, religion, etc etc cause i find the upheaval and change to be fun and interesting.
I'd say social policies are societal values that slowly evolve over time, and when viewed that way, civics and social policies are too different to compare.
I liked playing Pangea sometimes in Civ 4 as Japan. I would imagine I was uniting the land under my banner, not the entire world.
And naval invasions aren't hopeless o.O
Says who? You? The AI can do it. I can do it.
LOL, I must be a terrible player then. It takes everything I can do to win at Noble.
Well, I do know a little about Game Design.
The AI combat ineptitude has little to do with the way combat was implemented specifically and everything to do with how an AI translates a map.
A human doesn't require absolutes. I can look at 3 tiles between a mountain range, tune out all other map information and say: "That is a viable frontline." Whereas an AI can't interpret that section of the map without taking everything into account, such as another mountain pass south of that one where units have been spotted. The AI will think: My opponent could flank on that lower pass and destroy my ranged units. without understanding that beyond the primary frontline there is a high chance that I have other units.
And so when I see an AI with its Archers in the front line and I wonder if the thing is braindead, its more because the AI was thinking very hard, without taking unknown factors into account.
The AI is just horrible in combat this time around and so easily abused. I killed around 80 units with just 3 of mine and continued to march through countless things... by liberating poor ghandi and using borders as meat shields. By the end of the game Ghandi was second in score just through the city road i built of him.
I was with you until I got here. The global happiness scheme isn't more complex than IV, if anything it's easier due to "dogpiling." I.e. "Hey what should I do with this coliseum?" -- "Throw it on the pile!" When your happiness gets low, you have so many options and the simplest is to just build some building, anywhere. Why a building across the world can sate people in the BC ages when word travels slow is beyond me. Yet the mechanic oddly makes sense. When I think of civilizations, happiness or contentment with the powers that be does happen on a more national scale than per-city, so I can deal with the change.
Complexity has various metrics -- predicting and doing math in your head is a good one. That has GREATLY been simplified in V, because so much of the game has moved from several binary options (e.g. BTS) to a single giant homogenized pool of awesome-points. Awesome points can be purchased by gold, or built, or bought, or claimed.
What we did have in IV was good ways to review these metrics, we don't really have that in V because...
(wait for it)
they aren't needed! It doesn't matter which city is generating happiness because they're just a cog in the lego Technics machine Firaxis built this time around.
But none of this matters. Mods, patches, expansions will redeem this game.
Nah, it makes much less sense that if you make a colosseum a city across the world gets helped by it. What makses sense is that there are national events and characteristics that influence all of the nation. A despotic leader, a war, a disaster, etc.
I thought about your posting and understand what you are saying. I get it. But look at it that way: In Civ 4 you have built your first worker and have now to decide to cottage or farm (or you get a Great Person and have to decide to bulb or settle). The way you shape your empire influences what civics are chosen later in the game. Like Representation in a Specialist Economy. But here is the high opportunity cost you like with Social Policies! It is expensive and laborious to change to a Cottage Economy. You can make a "civic plan" and plot out your empire accordingly. On the other hand the civic system is flexible. Do I take a turn of anarchy know or do I wait for a golden age, do I change civics for war or do I try to maintain a superb economy, oh nooo , I am invaded, lets get the whip out and conscript Rifleman! I really, really like this combination of forward planning and flexibility. I couldn't care less if something is "complex". What does this even mean? Is something "complex" when it is "difficult"? Chess and Go have very simple rules but take years (a lifetime) to master.
Social Policies are like "traits" you are buying in the course of the game. I like your depiction, that the player is responsible if he emphasize that and in which direction. In the best of worlds the Social Policies will complement the individual form of your empire and flow synergetic with the rest of the stuff you do. But here is my concern: It lacks flexibility. In the worst of worlds SP won't matter that much, you will always chose the same good SP anyway and are locked in.
If in Civ 4 you are invaded by a bigger evil empire, even losing cities and losing precious luxury resources, you can still try to turn things around and change the direction of your nation 180 degrees to total war (or crank your espionage high up or tech race or crank production for the space ship up etc). This is such a cool thing! I do find it cool in singleplayer. If you win and look at the replay and see how your cities are conquered but than you turn it around and reconquer the world… this adds to an epic game. To do stuff and have game defining options.
Also I do find it necessary in Multiplayer. I have a group of friends with which I played many great games in Civ 4 and through individual skill and pure luck the tides of fortune are not always even. Civ is an unfair game. And as Civ is not like Starcraft, with 10 minute games, we try to make nonetheless our games long and epic. A few hours. A saturday evening. The civics in Civ 4 are a nice way to level somewhat the unfairness out, to react flexible on different circumstances and stay in the game even if a "wrong" choice was made. So I would I am kinda sad about the lack of this flexibility.
Someone else stated this nicely on another thread but there are different types of personalities that play civ... some who play to win at all costs and others who play for the historical experience. This is probably why no one on these threads can understand what the other half is trying to convey.
They need to make two sets of options in the startup screen.. one for the gamer and one for the historical geek (which I consider myself one). Have one option where the AI acts like another human backstabbing when expedient and another where you can nurture alliances over the course of the game (ie enter into wars you don't want to fight for the sake of an ally) to create massive axisii and world wars in the modern era.
Ultimately if the diplomacy could work to develop the equivalent of a massive cold war at the end, that would signify a very solid AI. Doesn't sound like we are close, unfortunately. cIV was maybe 70% of the way there..
Ha! I tried to say the same but this is wonderfully concise.
Yes. There is also no reason to not have both: Civics and buyable traits.
Like, imperial Japan and modern Japan are totally different in their emphasizing of military vs economy. But there is still a continuity in their cultural quirks which defines the nation. Or take soviet union and russia today with the russian soul. Bush-America vs Obama-USA… etc. A mixed system makes sense and could game-mechanic-wise work.
Japan is sort of a bad example, since they got defeated and were forced to transform in to a new peaceful nation. It was quite a severe split really!
In one of my recent games, I was just about to launch my spaceship, when the AI used all his espionage points to destroy one of the spaceships parts. I thought "Fine, I'll do the same to him"... Then I realised that I had neglected espionage and that it would take 50 turns for me to gather enough points. The AI then launched his own spaceship and won the game.
I think this is a good example of how these small details could change the outcome of the entire game. The Civ 5 fanboys claim that the slider was unnecessary since you spent all the gold on science, but obviously that ruined the game for me. And keep in mind that he didn't even declare war on me.
In Civ 5 on the other hand, was is the solution to everything. Someone is building a spaceship? Destroy the parts! Someones is building Utopia Project? Destroy it! You can no longer stop someone from winning a cultural victory by convincing him to give up Free Speech or by sabotaging his broadcast towers.
And yes, I know that espionage wasn't in vanilla Civ 4, but somehow I expect the new game to have, not all, but the best features from the old game. It seems as the focused more on animating cool leaders than on the actual gameplay.
Actually I'd nearly always play with the science victory disabled, because it was too much of a draw and anything after industrialism would just turn in to a tech race
I agree, but in many ways these aspects of manipulation have moved to either the city-states or the fact resources are limited. For now, I'm cool with that as my games have been very interesting. Civ5 has very strong foundations to build on to get to where BTS was and then beyond, IMO.
This is probably one of the more eloquent defenses of the Social Policy system, so let me commend you for actually bringing an argument to the table rather than "LOL UR WRONGZ".
I don't have the energy to write a long post right now, so let me just summarize my feelings by saying this: There is a pre-set plan for Social Policies too. If, at the beginning of the game, you are leaning towards a domination victory, you'll pick a militaristic leader and hit up the Order, Autocracy, etc. tracks. The problem is that, once you pick them, you are locked in. If you suddenly decide that you want to swerve and go for a space victory, you are SOL. There is no ability to adapt to the changing dynamics of the game. Perhaps that is more "realistic" but it certainly isn't fun knowing that, 100 turns in, you have one real path to victory (especially if you are playing against humans).
So what's the difference between social policies and civics/religion? The latter is folded into the diplomacy of the game, as it is in real life. There was a thrill that came along with racing to convert a border foe in Immortal to Islam so that I could flip a modifier in order to avoid war so I could continue the last twenty turns before a space victory (this actually happened on my first Immortal victory). But what about social policies? Outside the bonuses, they have no relevance to the game. Why not just tack the bonuses onto the leaders from the beginning and be done with it?
I wasn't opposed to replacing civics and religion with a single, more concise system, but I am opposed to removing national characteristics from the equation of AI diplomacy. That's not the kind of Civ that helped found this website.
So, I guess it was a little long.
i dont think mocking the OP because he played monarch is nice . It depends how you played . I played monarch because i didnt like to follow the same cookie cutter path through the game each time . Monarch while RP'ing a bit and not using cheese tactics makes it alot harder , anyone can win on a higher difficulty whipping all the time , wiping out your nearest civ with a cheesy ealry attack you know will succeed 100% . Its not just the difficulty but how you play as well .
i got no opinions yet as i wont jump to conclusions until i have played a few games . It does initially seemed watered down too much but maybe it will get more complex as we get more games under our belts.
I loved the example of Bad Brett, the AI stealing his spaceship victory, I would have been so *grrr* but it is also so cool.
I am curious how the situation will be in a 4-6 weeks (months) on this board. I see many new users or lurkers with only a few hundred posts (like myself or you Unionfield). Civ 5 is new, it is fresh, there are many big and small things to figure out and to discuss. But will it sustain the "fanatic" aspect which fueled Civ 4? Will regulars and old timers grow find enough replay value on Civ 5 or switch to a customized Mod or even revert back? It will be interesting to watch.
Separate names with a comma.