Civ VII Post-mortem: Crafting a redemption arc

[aieeegrunt]

You should definitely give up spouting vitriol and try relaxing a bit. I don't think I'm playing chess - it just feels fun, as if I'm playing chess.

Obviously the game makes more sense if the ranged units could only fire point blank. But the capability of artillery to hit from far away, and for archers to focus down a unit, for cavalry to sweep in dramatically, this gives the map more intrigue, as if it's a tactical map, even when the map is strictly strategic.

In other words, the way combat is since Civ5 and onwards is structured to benefit good positioning, tactical maneuvering and the strategy lies in the armies as a whole.

Plus there is a visual aspect. Large armies look large because they fill large areas of the map. Whereas stacked armies don't fully show how big an army is just from looking alone.

1 UPT and low move allowance means solving a sliding tile puzzle every time you move units, the AI is terrible at it

Ranged units with multi hex range and the aforementioned movement means you get ample opportunities to hit opponents with impunity as they approach

Ranged units cause significant damage on their own, and are not bad at defense

The above three things synergize to make ranged units stupidly OP, especially against the AI.

This is both bad gameplay AND bad history; if archers were this effective the Romans and Macedonians among othere wouldn’t have wasted so much effort and resources on their respective infantry.

Ranged units shoukd function like they did in 4; range zero, and they perform a defensive fire at anyone attacking their hex.

 

[Gorbles]

Substantially speaking nobody plays Civ anymore. It's like Candy Crush.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "substantially speaking"?

 

[Core Imposter]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "substantially speaking"?

of considerable importance, size, or worth:
concerning the essentials of something
real and tangible rather than imaginary

 

[Core Imposter]

You should definitely give up spouting vitriol

Certainly not my intent to come across like that. I deeply and humbly apologize for giving such impression.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This discussion puts me in mind of the famous Yogi Berra quote: Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore; it's too crowded.

 

[Skojardu]

Certainly not my intent to come across like that. I deeply and humbly apologize for giving such impression.

Part of the issue comparing Civ vs Candy Crush is that Civ games are necessarily long, and I cannot blame the dev team for thinking about cutting it in 3; HOWEVER, they didn't release the game with real "winning conditions" for Antiquity-Only or Exploration-Only or Modern-Only games; they're more like speed bumps for a single player while the rest of the game feels optimized for multi player. It was truly a Game by Committee in the worst way.

 

[Core Imposter]

This discussion puts me in mind of the famous Yogi Berra quote: Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore; it's too crowded.

That's exactly what I was going for. Who wants a common game?

 

[Core Imposter]

Civilization Chronicles

Civilization Chronicles is a compilation of all the Civilization games from Sid Meier's Civilization to Civilization IV. It was released in 2006. The original Civilization Civilization II, including: Civilization II Scenarios: Conflicts in Civilization Civilization II: Fantastic Worlds...

civilization.fandom.com

The Civ series essentially ended when Sid released the Sid Meiers Civilization Chronicles in 2006. After Civ IV, the abyss.

 

[Core Imposter]

I highly recommend you click through that article to the Bush/Blair spoof video. George got it.

 

[socratic]

If they significantly increased maintenance costs (with extra maintenance for units in enemy territory or next to enemies) it might be good.

I always thought maintenance should increase exponentially once you reach a certain unit threshold. If someone wanted a really large army they have to put a lot of production into making enough to cover their maintenance costs. But players with a better grasp at combat can do more with fewer troops and save their production/gold for something else. The threshold could rise with larger populations, allowing both tall and wide empires to have strong armies.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Who wants a common game?

Well, most crucially, 2K does.

There's nothing to stop the elite from playing whatever the last game was before the series fell off the cliff. I play 5, for instance to spare myself the visual abomination of unpacked cities. The Civ 1 forum here sees traffic.

 

[Core Imposter]

Well, most crucially, 2K does.

There's nothing to stop the elite from playing whatever the last game was before the series fell off the cliff. I play 5, for instance to spare myself the visual abomination of unpacked cities. The Civ 1 forum here sees traffic.

I am. Civ IV. Just entered turn 604, finished Liberalism and chose Astronomy. Pericles is just 7 turns behind. He sits with an overwhelming military on my borders but is overwhelmingly friendly with me. My bespoke rules deny me the opportunity to attack another Civ until they attack me first, so I am going to America, a continent where the raging barbarians have killed all the civilized tribes but a guy named George. There are a half dozen or so barbarian cities up there, including one called Babylon.

Aggressive AI last game meant 12 of the 18 AI attacked eventually. None to this point in this game, but 4 of the 18 original civs have fallen to the hordes. Pericles has built an impressive fleet of caravels and galleys which (the AI is stupid) can't cross the ocean yet but I am certain just as soon as possible he will launch an invasion of the Khan to the west. Which will allow me to move on Babylon.

Tricky aspect of my home rules, unless I can badger the Greeks into a war and defeat him, I will have to keep a huge home guard in case he turns on me while my forces are away (on one of the five other continents). Much more interesting than playing by the cheesy rules that allows the standard momentum rush don't you think?

But there are so many aspects of Civ IV that could be improved. Handicapping myself is better than not but it could be so much more if they decided to make another Civ game (or even do another expansion).

There is nothing in Civ V+ close to this quality even with me having to patch it up with homemade rules.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's absurd, perhaps financially irresponsible, of a game company to make a game that is infinitely replayable.

But if a franchise is going to do that, we fans of a particular iteration can't begrudge them attempting to draw fresh audiences.

 

[Kenshiro70]

Just a quick note to mention that I've updated the document, primarily to:

• Change the links to in-thread where appropriate
• Make the points around Balance and Complexity a little easier to read and follow
• Tweak the name so that people don't think I'm a total Debbie Downer.

The recent 1.2.4 patch and the Wonder rebalancing also provided a wonderful opportunity to examine the approach Firaxis took and explore potential alternative approaches, particularly with nerfing the Gate of All Nations (link).

I'm going to take a break, as I'm a bit burnt out, but I really appreciate all of the thoughtful comments. You all are the reason I do this. I appreciate you.

 

[Gorbles]

of considerable importance, size, or worth:
concerning the essentials of something
real and tangible rather than imaginary

Strange to insist on something so factually incorrect, but I guess anything goes for an opinion. Enjoy your Civ IV, though you're maybe in the wrong subforum for it.

 

[Core Imposter]

It's absurd, perhaps financially irresponsible, of a game company to make a game that is infinitely replayable.

But if a franchise is going to do that, we fans of a particular iteration can't begrudge them attempting to draw fresh audiences.

They very nearly did you know and that's why they left it alone. When all they really needed to do was to tweak it a bit and add options and they could have sold it all over again every 7 years or so forever.

Anyway, I have this theory that the ultimate game exists on Sid's private laptop.

 

[Siptah]

It's absurd, perhaps financially irresponsible, of a game company to make a game that is infinitely replayable.

But if a franchise is going to do that, we fans of a particular iteration can't begrudge them attempting to draw fresh audiences.

I think it's not only about infinitely replayable – people like to play games they know. There are some games that I can play for some hours every years, like the original Pharaoh, any Mario or Mario Kart, or Stronghold. Hence, a successful franchise has the problem to find a balance between a new entry that is familiar enough to the 'old guys' to get them on board, while also being innovative enough so that there is a reason to change to the new version. This is a difficult balance.

On the other hand, as a developer, it might be the most boring task to make the same thing again 'just up to date'? I'm no developer, but in the jobs I've been working in the domains of research or arts, if someone told me do repeat a project just with the current state of art and tech, I would have told them to find someone else.

Just yesterday, because Gamescom started, one of the major german newspaper had a headliner about how there are hundreds of new games presented, but the majority will be not as successful as necessary. The main reason being that there are a huge number of good and older games out there, and despite huge marketing efforts, most gamers stick to 'old' games for most of their playing time.

 

[GeneralZift]

1 UPT and low move allowance means solving a sliding tile puzzle every time you move units, the AI is terrible at it

Ranged units with multi hex range and the aforementioned movement means you get ample opportunities to hit opponents with impunity as they approach

Ranged units cause significant damage on their own, and are not bad at defense

The above three things synergize to make ranged units stupidly OP, especially against the AI.

This is both bad gameplay AND bad history; if archers were this effective the Romans and Macedonians among othere wouldn’t have wasted so much effort and resources on their respective infantry.

Ranged units shoukd function like they did in 4; range zero, and they perform a defensive fire at anyone attacking their hex.

I understand where you're coming from, but why don't they just buff the Cavalry to counter the Archers and bring in unique Anti archer ranged units like Skirmishers? Why not have Archers take bonus damage from artillery since they are not as armoured as infantry formations?
Why not give them a large penalty to defensive combat?

They don't necessarily need to remove the range of the ranged units, or scrap 1upt to fix an issue about ranged units being very good.

Also, the AI sucks, there is a great solution, it's actually called Improving the AI.

And don't tell me it can never play 1upt because it can. The AI sucks in every department not just combat so the underlying issue is that it needs more effort put into it as a whole.

 

[Siptah]

Also, the AI sucks, there is a great solution, it's actually called Improving the AI.

And don't tell me it can never play 1upt because it can. The AI sucks in every department not just combat so the underlying issue is that it needs more effort put into it as a whole.

Humankind actually has a decent combat AI, but this may be helped by a defined smaller tactical map. But they also have some mechanics that prevent ranged units from running away. For example, attacking ranged units with ranged units triggers a retaliation fire, and infantry units can enter defensive stance or even dig in (in the later part of the game) to be less affected by ranged attacks. Additionally, they went with the logic that infantry units in the gunpowder era are all ranged, but not all ranged units can fire over units in front (crossbows also can't, for instance). And yes, in Humankind, cavalry simply destroys most ranged units.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think it's not only about infinitely replayable – people like to play games they know. There are some games that I can play for some hours every years, like the original Pharaoh, any Mario or Mario Kart, or Stronghold. Hence, a successful franchise has the problem to find a balance between a new entry that is familiar enough to the 'old guys' to get them on board, while also being innovative enough so that there is a reason to change to the new version. This is a difficult balance.

Yes, and this forms part of my own experience with the franchise. I bought 6 and played two or three games. Then I went back to 5. There were two things I didn't like about 6: unpacked cities and social policies being in the form of cards rather than trees. But even those two together would not have been enough to make me skip out on the game. What did was that I wanted to be playing a game whose mechanics I already knew, rather than one where I was learning everything. As I said in my first post in this thread, one's sense of how one is doing in a particular game is a function of knowing the game's benchmarks: how fast population ordinarily grows, what the usual amount of gpt is. Against those benchmarks, you can say, in a particular game, "I'm cruising toward success here" or "I better make a big move because I'm falling behind." I didn't know any of those benchmarks for 6, and therefore didn't have a feel for how well or poorly I was doing in a particular game, and I just wanted to go back to a game where I did know those things.

Various old timers, for various reasons, get stuck on one particular iteration within the franchise. And, because the games are basically infinitely replayable, one can stay stuck, i.e. not move on to the next.

So, yes, among the developers' challenges is striking that balance between carrying over familiar mechanics and not just making Civ #.2