Discussion in 'Civ5 - Creation & Customization' started by Afforess, Apr 11, 2011.
This makes me glad I did not jump ship on Civ4 modding and stayed with civ4. In fact i did not even get around to buying Civ5. I am not really surprised though. There are a lot of games like this that just were better with the older version. For instance Sim City 4 is still superior to Sim Cities Societies (which also was a flop game). And Neverwinters Nights had modding tools much more versatile than Neverwinters Nights 2 had even when Neverwinters Nights 2 had superior graphics. I would have to say there was a sweet spot in game in early 2000s where modding was possible for lots of games where both the code and graphics were primitive enough that anyone could mod them. In fact the same goes for games like The Sims 2 where modding is what kept it alive but now with the Sims 3 modding is much harder for modders to do.
Will there be a Civ 6 in the future that is as modable as Civ 4 is? I highly doubt it unless the Civ designers look at our modding trends and see what is keeping their old game alive even when the next version flops.
R.I.P. Civ 5. You looked cool but you were just eye candy.
You didnt get it: Most of the guys flaming Civ5 are doing so cause they used hacked versions that crash all the time. And some of those that play legal do so on rotten mashines and wonder why the game is slow. Thats the two main problems and both are out of reach for the devs.
People just dont want to invest cash into the game and stay on the outdated version.
Moderator Action: Don't imply that anyone uses pirated versions here, that's considered trolling.
Nope - engine stuff.
Oh, but i DID actually.
Civ 5 modding will never reach the level of 4, they made some decissions that IMO make it worse for modders.
Still I like Civ5, and with the latest patch I am playing again thanks to the faster turns fix.
About modding, some bad ideas:
-Allow to mod only parts of the files. Why? To merge with other mods, well yes you can select several in the mod browser but results are unpredictable. Before a modder could merge mods with text comparisson tools, right now is a nightmare to know what each mod modifies.
-This is related to the SQL changes, and I like them and use it. But it makes it more complicated to have two ways to change the database (XML and SQL) when it comes to understand what a mod is changing.
-Poor events as stated, with Python modders made much more impressive changes than the LUA/XML options.
-Unused tags, yes, a lot of them that do nothing. Small things like been able to raze all cities is not possible.
-No SDK(dll mod), the biggest right now. I am waiting for its release and will probably mod for it, but still I think it is comming too late now.
So can we port some of the gameplay features (One unit per tile, ranged bombardment, policies, etc) back into civ4?
I don't see why not. Ranged bombardment actually exists in civ4 already, Firaxis just never used it in the base game; check out mods like Afterworld (which also has 1upt) and Next War. Policies would likely require SDK work though.
Actually, ranged bombardment and 1upt* are both in RifE.
You can get some of the things. You can have UAs, for instance, as they're just specialized traits. Others... Hexes are a no go. Other obvious things of that nature.
*Technically, it's xUPT, designed by Afforess, and only available in our SVN version.
Civ4 has ranged bombardment since at least 2006 (Dale's Combat Mod).
Civ4 has "one unit per tile" for at least a year (Afforess' "A New Dawn"). The AI can't handle it very well, but that puts the implementation right on par with Civ5. Personally, as someone who played games decades ago when technical limitations enforced 1upt, and who rejoiced when technical progress finally allowed designers to drop that artificial limitation, I really don't understand why some people want to reintroduce such an ancient limitation, it's like forcing people to play on 320x200 screens again. But _if_ they want to have it in Civ4, it's there already.
Civ4 doesn't have policies, it has the much more flexible civics system. If someone really wants to tune that system down to a policies system, then it could be done, the question is rather why.
Firstly, I think that 1upt is better than SoD; The first requires SOME amount of tactics, rather than "Biggest Stack Wins". Better would likely be some xUPT, where x is higher than 1 but less than 20. But IMO at least, 1upt is still an improvement.
As for policies... Civics are more of a short-term choice. You can flip out of them whenever you like. Policies, on the other hand, are a long-term investment, which you cannot regain. I feel policies have more depth overall, though like you said, civics are more flexible. Personally, I see no reason we couldn't simply have both.
Exactly. The Stack of Doom was a horrible idea, balance-wise; if the AI stacked up then it was too easy for the player to gut his army with strategic application of collateral damage promotions, while the player's army would be almost immune to the same. Stack enough, though, and no amount of bombardment would make a difference and the stack could roll over anything. Artillery and anti-air units could be placed in a stack, protected by defensive infantry, and so would never be in danger of counterattack. Wounded units were completely safe to heal, as long as the opponent didn't throw so many units at the stack at once to kill all of it.
This was just not good design, and is not something that should be returned to. And really, Psyringe, think about what you said; if going from 1UPT to stacks was automatically an improvement just because it was newer, then wouldn't that make Civ5's systems even better by default? And if Civ5 isn't an improvement over Civ4, then wouldn't that invalidate the assumption that Civ4's stacks were an improvement over the previous versions? (Translation: stacks were a step backwards, gameplay-wise, and the devs dumped them once this became apparent.)
Now, I'd prefer something more flexible than 1UPT. Not just a flat xUPT, I mean a dynamic system where combat effectiveness decreases the more crowded the hex gets. Basically, allow stacks to happen but find legitimate reasons for players NOT to use them. But this'd require significant AI improvement.
Of course I don't believe that everything that's newer is automatically better, that would be rather idiotic. Innovation _can_ go wrong (I think several design decisions of Civ5 underline that.) However, having stacks was _not_ a quick innovation that led to the wrong direction. It was a progress that that has proven its worth for decades. And ...
... that's exactly an idea that would have meant _progress_ on the concept of stacks instead of just reverting to a 20-year old artificial hard-cap limitation. Civ4 mods have several other ideas that combat overpowered stacks, each of those would have been preferable to the reintroduction - I don't think your idea has been implemented yet for either Civ4 or Civ5, but personally I'd like it.
Personally, I prefer implementing armies, combined units whose effectiveness is determined by how you structure it (IE, slots for front-line, rear, center, flanks).
A "supply" mechanic has been done many times, IIRC, and generally is ineffective at combatting stacks. Sure, each unit becomes weaker... But if you have so damn many that it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
Didn't CtP have something along those lines Valkrionn?
To me it's become clear that Civ is just the wrong game to have 1UPT.
Civ just has the wrong scope.
Besides, 1UPT was the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Well, of course it DOES exist, but only for truly hardocre gamers. The problem only affects those that play on the highest difficulties and who are thus subject to incoming AI SoDs or those who like to game the system by bringing their own SoDs to unexpecting AIs.
I VASTLY preferred Civ2's approach - you can stack as many units as you like, but if - on the defensive - ONE of your units is defeated, the entire stack bids farewell (unless it's in a fortress). This meant there was a natural incentive not to overuse the benefits of a unit stack.
Always damaging other units in the tile and/or forcing them to retreat (and disbanding them if there's nowhere to run) would be another solution.
About units decreasing performance the more crowded a tile is ... I'm not too fond of it. If there was an army mechanic, it'd be feasible to have the strongest army on the tile fight the battle, with the army's own reserve units AND any additional units on the tile forming the reserve, but with a limited capacity to bring reserves to the field and a limited "frontage". Kinda like in AGEOD's wargames, if anybody knows them.
1UPT is much better if the scope is different and units that have a movement range of, say 5 can be considered slow. In Civ, though, even a unit with movement range 2 (not including the additional bunny-hopping movement point every unit gets in Civ5) must be considered fast, at least for a long time.
But wait, why is this discussed in a thread about civ5 modding being dead?
On THAT topic, I have a question: In the Warhammer mod discussion thread the screenies feature imported WH2k units. Is it now possible to import unit art using the official tools (or some other means)? How about building art? Any news?
The people in that thread refuse to answer that question ,for some reason, and looking at the unit graphics subforum, it's still not exactly a hub of activity...
afaik the imported units are not made using the official tools but it can be done yes, and no, you still can't add 3D buildings or terrain improvements.
I was never a hardcore gamer, and find I like 1upt much better. In civ4, I would often just stop playing a game when a rival attacked me with seemingly hundreds of units on the same tile. It was very frustrating for people who weren't hardcore. Many of the changes to Civ5 were made for people who aren't hardcore. That is probably why so many people complain about them on these forums. Well, that and the problems with modding. Which is what this thread is about.
Takkyon: By hardcore gamers I was merely referring to the people that played games which allowed the AI to field stacks of doom in the first place.
I've been playing Civ4 since it came out, and I really only had the problem you describe maybe a dozen times. It's there, no doubt about it, but I think most people are exaggerating when they bemoan it.
Again, I totally agree that it can be almost a game (as in that particular game, not the game per se) breaker when you see a huge stack of units approach.
At other times, when I found I had the sufficient forces to actually do something about it, it was statisfying whittling away the enemy forces before they could do any harm.
If it troubled you so much, I'm curious how you felt about the way Civ2 handled stacks.
For me, the downsides of 1UPT in Civ5 far outweight the positives, but that's of course personal preferrence.
The way Civ2 did it isn't horrible. It has issues (one slipup can destroy your army), but not insurmountable ones.
What I would do in Civ5, is add a "Movement Mode", where your unit is treated much as if it was embarked. Civilian, no strength. In return, it can be stacked (maybe up to some higher limit, rather than infinite) with other units in the same mode, and up to one standard unit for protection.
Separate names with a comma.