Civilization 5

[W|M]

We need more recourses!!!!!!!!!
Also, we should need some recourses to trade techs/Open Borders e.t.c (e.g. Need Papyrus for OB)

Also, we should need certain recourses to build wonders (e.g. You need Stone for the Pyramids and you need iron for the Eiffel Tower)

 

[vsoma]

Difficulty levels shouldn't mean the AI gets more bonuses. There should be more difficulty switches, one for the bonuses, one for the smartness and one e.g. for starting location. There could also be pre-made difficulty levels and you could add your owns (for fans who play much).
I'm sick and tired that the AI gets free upgrades, starts his first city with a warrior more than half done (I checked it in world builder and was wondering if I skipped some turns or what). It's simply unfair. It's like your opponent in a board game throws the dice one more time at the start than you do. And it's in so many game - that's nearly the only reason why I stopped playing Battlefront 2, for instance.

Back to topic: air units (fighters and bombers and related) should be similar to the helicopter unit, just faster (like 1,5-2 times the movement points, to be realist), so they can be up in the air more than a fraction of a turn, and could make normal air fights instead of just intercepting which limits to cities only. Their function, however, shouldn't change, they still can bomb and shoot as usual. There should be a counter which indicates how many turns can it hold in the air (depends on the game speed). If it expires, the plane goes down.
Now a more unsure part: depending on the terrain, the pilots can crashland and save themselves but lose their planes. They form a pilot unit, which is unarmed (or a small revolver with a hitpoints of 4-5 against animals). This'd work with the idea of having army require population too, since these pilots can go back into a city again and become citizen, or they can use another plane (which can't fly without pilots - you need to train pilots for them too).
Make air units able to KILL units and/or make them hurt them more.
Also, why can't helicopters fly over water? I didn't really expect that. And they should have the same refueling needs as air units as I made my idea above. They can't be in air forever.

I might even risk to say to add another "era" for planes. Right now you discover flight and you have BF-109's and B-17's, which looks funny. So why don't have we earlier aircrafts? With less hitpoints, less movement (see above about air unit changes). So there would be a World War 1 kind of air set (fighter and bomber alike), a WW2 one, and finally a modern one. A jet bomber would make a fine addition too - cheaper but more detectable and interceptable than its stealth brother.

 

[EmperorFool]

Difficulty levels shouldn't mean the AI gets more bonuses.. . . It's simply unfair. It's like your opponent in a board game throws the dice one more time at the start than you do.

It would be unfair if the AI was as smart as you, but it isn't. Thus, the game is already extremely skewed in your favor. The bonuses are simply an attempt to make the AI competitive.

Haven't you ever given a new player an extra turn or two when teaching them a new game? Have you "pulled your punches" while they get familiar with the rules? Neglected to capture their Queen as if they had tricked you (point it out of course)?

This is the same thing. The difference is that the new player can eventually become as good or better than you. The AI just doesn't have that capability. It will be a long, long time before AIs can be smart enough to do strategic thinking and make capable war plans, in my humble but educated opinion.

Eventually we'll see more advanced capabilities from AIs. They'll feint an attack on one city only to move the bulk of their army to your opposite border a few turns later, once you've moved your counter units out of position. But this would be very difficult to code. I'm an expert programmer and understand some of the things AI coders do. Though I haven't looked deeply into AI programming, I am amazed that the AI is as good as it is.

In the end, it's all calculations and rules that get applied to make a decision, and our brains are far more complex--like a trillion-core parallel processor.

There should be more difficulty switches, one for the bonuses, one for the smartness and one e.g. for starting location.

This, however, I would like to have. I would like to give the AI high bonuses but get a decent starting location myself, or vice versa. This can probably be modified in the XML already, though.

 

[vsoma]

It would be unfair if the AI was as smart as you, but it isn't. Thus, the game is already extremely skewed in your favor. The bonuses are simply an attempt to make the AI competitive.

It is not unfair when you play equal. It is the only thing which is fair. And when the AI is just as smart as you, you are equals - considering you have both the same circumstances to play.

Haven't you ever given a new player an extra turn or two when teaching them a new game? Have you "pulled your punches" while they get familiar with the rules? Neglected to capture their Queen as if they had tricked you (point it out of course)?

You mean, the AI is such a "new player"? That it needs bonuses to get competitive?
I rather think the AI should be competitive enough to make me think without getting free promotions and other bonuses. I want to play with an equal opponent instead of a fool taking my Knight and my Horses, for example. On Settler I can make big errors and yet I get every wonder and at the end I can easily crush their longbowmen with my modern armors (okay I give it to them, they sometimes make it to gunpowder).

This is the same thing. The difference is that the new player can eventually become as good or better than you. The AI just doesn't have that capability. It will be a long, long time before AIs can be smart enough to do strategic thinking and make capable war plans, in my humble but educated opinion.

Well, there are methods for learning AI, so they actually can improve. For example the AI remembers which combinations were bad for them and good, and builds a huge database of these combinations and their results, which database it'll use next. Of course it constantly refines this database. So, AI is able to learn, you just have to program it.
Naturally, as the database grows, the game becomes slower and slower.

Eventually we'll see more advanced capabilities from AIs. They'll feint an attack on one city only to move the bulk of their army to your opposite border a few turns later, once you've moved your counter units out of position. But this would be very difficult to code. I'm an expert programmer and understand some of the things AI coders do. Though I haven't looked deeply into AI programming, I am amazed that the AI is as good as it is.

I was never fully statisfied with any game's AI. It's amazing how people can program the computer to act like a real man, however, there are always minor or major glitches in their thinking, and more or less big requirements in certain areas (like the trading intelligence in Civ 4), which they usually balance with cheating, which is just annoying, if not maddening sometimes.

In the end, it's all calculations and rules that get applied to make a decision, and our brains are far more complex--like a trillion-core parallel processor.

Current computers actually overpower brain capabilities. Not in every area, I agree, because e.g. face recognition still goes faster in organic. But who can calculate the sine of a number, let alone calculate 20 number's sine in one second? I sure can't, but my calculator can.
The main problem is that the computer has at most 30 seconds (the loadtime between turns - more time would make people fell out of the game) to calculate 18 civilisations actions with over a thousand units to move. This can't be optimised beyond a border. So the game has half a minute to set up its plans and so on (it also has to do plenty other stuff). A human mind can't do that.
Of course the human mind has to take care of plenty of other stuff as well (for example keeping you alive in every aspect), but the computer is faster anyway.

(By the way, we are getting off-topic here).

Those multiple difficulty switches would ease this problem (I'd never give bonuses to the AI, ever - let them think). But a better AI is still in demand.

 

[EmperorFool]

It is not unfair when you play equal. It is the only thing which is fair. And when the AI is just as smart as you, you are equals - considering you have both the same circumstances to play.

There's a distinction between fair and equal. Equal means that you and the AI are on equal footing: you have the same capability and rules. This is not possible as you and the AI will never have the same thinking capacity. Fair has more wiggle room. You could say fair only means the game rules. In that case, the AI is "cheating". Fair could also mean that the combination of bonuses plus mental capability are close to each other. This is where adding bonuses to the AI's weak mind attempts to make a fair game. In that case I don't call it cheating.

In the end it's semantics and unimportant, but perhaps it will help you drop your aversion to the bonuses as "cheating". That's just gonna ruin your enjoyment of the game with no gain.

You mean, the AI is such a "new player"? That it needs bonuses to get competitive?

Exactly. You are playing against a 2 year old. The AI simply cannot act strategically. It is not programmed with that capability.

I rather think the AI should be competitive enough to make me think without getting free promotions and other bonuses.

I wish it were as well. But it isn't, and it won't be any time soon. You can either continue being miffed by that or accept it and enjoy the game you have. It's your choice.

Well, there are methods for learning AI, so they actually can improve. For example the AI remembers which combinations were bad for them and good, and builds a huge database of these combinations and their results, which database it'll use next.

That works great when you have an extremely limited set of possible moves, games like chess or checkers. But strategy is far more than just moving groups of units in random combinations until you achieve victory.

Current computers actually overpower brain capabilities. Not in every area.

I would say only in one area: computation, and that's a small part of the game. Show a picture of a chair to a computer and ask it what it is. Show it a smiling face and ask it what emotion is being expressed. Show it a landmass with cities and ask it to pick the best invasion point.

The main problem is that the computer has at most 30 seconds to calculate 18 civilisations actions with over a thousand units to move . . . . A human mind can't do that . . . . But the computer is faster anyway.

Yes, the computer can make a thousand poor moves faster than a human can make 30 good ones, and yet the human does better. This is why the AI needs bonuses, otherwise you'd trounce it without breaking a sweat. That would be boring.

As a clarification, I would also like to have a smarter AI that doesn't require bonuses. However, I acknowledge that a smart AI is a long way off, and thus I don't agree that bonuses are cheating. Try to accept them as a necessary evil, and they won't annoy you so much.

 

[vsoma]

There's a distinction between fair and equal. Equal means that you and the AI are on equal footing: you have the same capability and rules. This is not possible as you and the AI will never have the same thinking capacity. Fair has more wiggle room. You could say fair only means the game rules. In that case, the AI is "cheating". Fair could also mean that the combination of bonuses plus mental capability are close to each other. This is where adding bonuses to the AI's weak mind attempts to make a fair game. In that case I don't call it cheating.

You are right. Still, cheating annoys me, no matter the circumstances. Of course I might let a 4 year old in chess to step against the rules, but I don't want to treat the AI like a 4 year old.

In the end it's semantics and unimportant, but perhaps it will help you drop your aversion to the bonuses as "cheating". That's just gonna ruin your enjoyment of the game with no gain.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game. And now I understand that the game needs them. I mixed this kind of cheating with the one found in many games e.g. in Battlefront 2 where AI space ships can turn back instantly, yet they shoot/attack you every second full moon.

Exactly. You are playing against a 2 year old. The AI simply cannot act strategically. It is not programmed with that capability.

Ok... but here is the problem! A strategy game's AI should be able to act strategically. It should know all basics of leading the empire, all tactics used in combat, and use them depending on the circumstances and on the difficulty level (a Settler AI won't use such difficult manouvers to outflank you). This'd be quite a job for poor developers, but the result would be cool. Of course the main point is to have a good game, which doesn't need perfect AI, but it'd be a great strategy game nevertheless.
And you are especially right because this computer is 2 years old (going for its third birthday soon)

I wish it were as well. But it isn't, and it won't be any time soon. You can either continue being miffed by that or accept it and enjoy the game you have. It's your choice.

I do enjoy it. However I point out that there could be improvements.

That works great when you have an extremely limited set of possible moves, games like chess or checkers. But strategy is far more than just moving groups of units in random combinations until you achieve victory.

You are right. I might add that the main goal (winning) must be broken down to several pieces in a more complex game, which reduces the set of moves for each sub-objective.

I would say only in one area: computation, and that's a small part of the game. Show a picture of a chair to a computer and ask it what it is. Show it a smiling face and ask it what emotion is being expressed. Show it a landmass with cities and ask it to pick the best invasion point.

Since everything can be broken down to computing (and accessing data, computers do that ridicilously fast too), it is quite an advantage over humans. Human mind only differs because it is not general purpose like processors. We are biologic machines.
Picture recognition and strategic thinking is not the part of the hardware, it is just the matter of a software. Computer can learn faster than human, you just need the correct algorythms and procedures for that, which we yet lack for public use.
Even my calculator could recognise a smile if it had the program (and preferably a camera too ). It'd take some time for it, but that calculator isn't really close to a desktop PC in performance.

Yes, the computer can make a thousand poor moves faster than a human can make 30 good ones, and yet the human does better. This is why the AI needs bonuses, otherwise you'd trounce it without breaking a sweat. That would be boring.

It is software matter, not hardware. The computer's hardware capabilities are just bigger than human's. I think - can't really compare them in many ways.

As a clarification, I would also like to have a smarter AI that doesn't require bonuses. However, I acknowledge that a smart AI is a long way off, and thus I don't agree that bonuses are cheating. Try to accept them as a necessary evil, and they won't annoy you so much.

It poisons my game a little that I know my opponents only win because they have certain advantages, bonuses over me, while - given a strategic game - I'd prefer them to outsmart me. However I agree this won't happen very soon, unfortunately Maybe we'll make the next-generation strategy game? Who knows!

 

[Pitboss]

I do understand how Firaxis can't continue the Alpha Centauri series in exactly the same way (EA), but what's stopping them from making a Civ version where they continue the game after the modern age?

Something that might combine the Civ end-game, Call To Power, Alpha Centauri story concept and a lot of sci-fi.

And why is their never any ability to do something in space? Alpha Centauri had satellites, perhaps Civ 5 could add conquering space resources or whole planets/rocks/or anything at all? Hopefully that lack of space is not because of possible Sierra patents for Galactic Civilizations.

But anyhow Civ might be great, but please try altering the formula a bit. Earth is only one planet out of who knows how many others ... Civilization 5 : The Space Age ...

 

[exhile]

I do understand how Firaxis can't continue the Alpha Centauri series in exactly the same way (EA), but what's stopping them from making a Civ version where they continue the game after the modern age?

Something that might combine the Civ end-game, Call To Power, Alpha Centauri story concept and a lot of sci-fi.

And why is their never any ability to do something in space? Alpha Centauri had satellites, perhaps Civ 5 could add conquering space resources or whole planets/rocks/or anything at all? Hopefully that lack of space is not because of possible Sierra patents for Galactic Civilizations.

But anyhow Civ might be great, but please try altering the formula a bit. Earth is only one planet out of who knows how many others ... Civilization 5 : The Space Age ...

Civilization deals with the history of many civs to date. I think the reason why the Civilization series is successful is because of the historical elements many players are knowledgeable about. The ancient, classical, medieval, industrial, modern, and future ages are eras that the player is familiar with.

Alpha Centauri is about a probable future. There is no historical facts to support that humans will evolve in that way. However, Alpha Centauri makes a great sci-fi game.

 

[jsweeney]

i think they should add more uniqueness to a civ. I mean, there should be more unique units and more unique buildings for a civ. Also, America doesn't have marines or supermarkets? get rid of the replacement part and simply make UUs and UBs more expensive to build. their should be simply more bonuses to a civilization, kinda like in Rhye's mod, where lets say the English are a sea-faring people by nature and the mongols like to stay on one land mass, or that the religions have significant impacts on the game instead of just a name and symbol. some will spread faster while others can overtake the religion in an area. Have intriguing events like a Spanish Reconquista where the Spanish take back their land from a foreign Civilization, or an Act of Union between a Civ and Barbarian city creating a different empire. Or, create an interesting new trading system in which you can create not just corporations but trading companies that establish themselves in a distant civilization and slowly builds your cultural base there, and if you go to war with said civilization, for each city the trading company is in, you get one basic military unit right outside of those cities, so if you are technologically superior to this foreign civ, the conquest will be better. Also, say if their are crusades in which one group of peoples travel far distances to another land with weird and rare spices never seen before, i will create an almost adventurous feeling within your empire, and soon people on their on will start trading around the world and support conquest of far-off lands, limiting war weariness. What i want in civ is the gradual evolution of human civilizations as it happened in real life. Europeans got contact with spices and soon started setting up trading sites everywhere to get the spices, while the Indians allowed the Europeans to set up this trading sites, weakening the Mughal Empire.

 

[Pitboss]

Civilization deals with the history of many civs to date. I think the reason why the Civilization series is successful is because of the historical elements many players are knowledgeable about. The ancient, classical, medieval, industrial, modern, and future ages are eras that the player is familiar with.

Alpha Centauri is about a probable future. There is no historical facts to support that humans will evolve in that way. However, Alpha Centauri makes a great sci-fi game.

That sounds pretty similar to SMAC. Civ also works with a probable future, but they're just divided into area's with dedicated units and buildings. How the time plays out is just as much a surprise in Civ as in SMAC, right?!

 

[Dave Hartwick]

Somewhere around the enlightenment period religions would begin to fade in importance and ideologies would begin to appear and spread: Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Utopianism, etc. With the advent of Nationalism, national identities would begin to appear in geographic areas, as historically happened in Eastern Europe.

Ideologies would enable the player to better apply Civics-- cities with a socialist or Marxist ideology would gain extra benefits from State Property, to use the Civ IV example. Players could also influence other civilizations by spreading agitators to cause trouble or even revolution with the attendant period of anarchy.

Nationalist movements would require the player to either cut the affected cities loose as a vassal or appease the nationalists by a change in civics or another cost. If the player fails to do so, civil war could result.

Religion would remain important for civilizations running a fundamentalist government.

 

[jsweeney]

Somewhere around the enlightenment period religions would begin to fade in importance and ideologies would begin to appear and spread: Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Utopianism, etc. With the advent of Nationalism, national identities would begin to appear in geographic areas, as historically happened in Eastern Europe.

Ideologies would enable the player to better apply Civics-- cities with a socialist or Marxist ideology would gain extra benefits from State Property, to use the Civ IV example. Players could also influence other civilizations by spreading agitators to cause trouble or even revolution with the attendant period of anarchy.

Nationalist movements would require the player to either cut the affected cities loose as a vassal or appease the nationalists by a change in civics or another cost. If the player fails to do so, civil war could result.

Religion would remain important for civilizations running a fundamentalist government.

Also, it would be interesting if you can affect the power of your government with a slider, so if it is at 100%, you get production bonuses but your tech rate suffers and you have more unhappiness, but with a loose government structure you get decreased production but more happiness and a higher tech rate. Also, say if the Apostolic palace is built for buddhists, then the AP has some power of the people, so then the govt. can't be at 100%, and then the kings or whatever govt. structure can separate themselves from the AP and the creation of Religious branches come into play, which can also be used in your ideologies idea, where if there is one central example for a capitalistic society, and another civ wants to be capitalistic but decides to take a different approach, then they get their own unique form of capitalism and they have increased nationalistic pride. Thats what i can't stand about the game, how there's always one finite path for everything, and there's no real danger in switching from state property to free market, only a few turns of anarchy. I mean, russia is still dealing with a bit of protests and stuff and they haven't fully recovered since the fall of the U.S.S.R. So, if i interpret your post the way i think you meant it, which would be a missionary system for ideologies, like a marxist unit or a capitalist unit spreading those ideas around, then i am all for it.

 

[exhile]

That sounds pretty similar to SMAC. Civ also works with a probable future, but they're just divided into area's with dedicated units and buildings. How the time plays out is just as much a surprise in Civ as in SMAC, right?!

Well the factions and the tech tree in SMAC is somewhat fictional. The civs and tech tree in the Civ series is factual so.... but I understand what you mean by enjoying the game play. I guess it doesn't matter since playing out time for fun and seeing what might possibly happen in the end is what counts.

 

[EmperorFool]

While it's neat that the techs and civilizations are based in reality, I would get no less enjoyment with a purely fictional tech tree, units, buildings, etc. In fact, I think I'd enjoy that even more as there would be new concepts to learn.

 

[jsweeney]

While it's neat that the techs and civilizations are based in reality, I would get no less enjoyment with a purely fictional tech tree, units, buildings, etc. In fact, I think I'd enjoy that even more as there would be new concepts to learn.

obviously, there are some things that are too ridiculous. like, no one would want to play the game if their were fairy units and magic fire techs.... however, in a mod this would be great, but i think although people love getting messages like london has been captured by the indian empire, but i doubt that if the entire game was filled with things magic and fantasy like people would get sick of it fast

 

[exhile]

While it's neat that the techs and civilizations are based in reality, I would get no less enjoyment with a purely fictional tech tree, units, buildings, etc. In fact, I think I'd enjoy that even more as there would be new concepts to learn.

Well, we all have different preferences of enjoying a game whether it be learning new concepts or reinventing old ones. SMAC was released after Civ2 and discontinued after that for who knows why. Civ3 came out and then civ4. So, it could be assumed that a majority of people like a turned based strategy game that deals with factual tech trees, units & buildings.

 

[EmperorFool]

It could be assumed that a majority of people like a turned based strategy game that deals with factual tech trees, units & buildings.

[My emphasis]

I think that's a safe assumption; otherwise the series would have died long ago. But when I think about what I enjoy most about the series, it's that you start with nothing (well, two techs) and go from there. I like the future era techs (they interest me), but that stage of the game is a little boring for me. By that point I'm tweaking the knobs and dials on my empire--no longer building one from scratch. My favorite part is exploring and building, though I do still enjoy warring.

 

[rysmiel]

i think they should add more uniqueness to a civ. I mean, there should be more unique units and more unique buildings for a civ. Also, America doesn't have marines or supermarkets? get rid of the replacement part and simply make UUs and UBs more expensive to build. their should be simply more bonuses to a civilization, kinda like in Rhye's mod, where lets say the English are a sea-faring people by nature and the mongols like to stay on one land mass, or that the religions have significant impacts on the game instead of just a name and symbol.

No no no no no no no no no.

If the English get bonuses that make them natural seafarers, and you play the English and get a start in the middle of a big continent, you're stuffed. Likewise if you have bonuses fitting the historical Mongols and your bunch of Mongols start off on an archipelago.

What i want in civ is the gradual evolution of human civilizations as it happened in real life.

That just seems so incredibly boring to me it might as well not be a game at all; with real history you already know how it comes out in the end, so where on earth is the challenge ?

 

[rysmiel]

obviously, there are some things that are too ridiculous. like, no one would want to play the game if their were fairy units and magic fire techs.... however, in a mod this would be great, but i think although people love getting messages like london has been captured by the indian empire, but i doubt that if the entire game was filled with things magic and fantasy like people would get sick of it fast

It would be a different hgame, but I think it would still be a lot of fun, just in a different way.

 

[jsweeney]

No no no no no no no no no.

If the English get bonuses that make them natural seafarers, and you play the English and get a start in the middle of a big continent, you're stuffed. Likewise if you have bonuses fitting the historical Mongols and your bunch of Mongols start off on an archipelago.



That just seems so incredibly boring to me it might as well not be a game at all; with real history you already know how it comes out in the end, so where on earth is the challenge ?

i'm not saying that historically things will happen to the books, but AI strategy simply evolves over time. I don't want the AI to simply expand. i want to see it focus it's goals on one region, and develop serious military plans and not just send units into a territory. I want the AI to be able to look at the map and use it to their best advantage. I also want to see them changing their capital if suitable, not just onto different continents, but on the same continent, to a city with greater defense or more legendary.