Do you prefer Civ IV's traits or Civ V's unique abilities and what'd you prefer in VI

[Skykiller]

Traits are really something I don't like in Civ IV. At least, Civ V's UAs make each civilization unique. With traits, I had the impression that each leaders were a bit the same. What's the difference between a financial/creative leader and a financial/philosphical leader ? If you take the corresponding leaders (William van Oranje and Elisabeth I), they have different UA in Civ V and a different playstyle.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

The answer to that is play someone other than Mongolia. It's The Mongols. GENGHIS KHAN. Quite possibly the most terrifying, ruthless and murderous man in all of human history. If you're expecting anything other than obscene specialisation into slaughter and conquest from the back of a horse then, quite frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree.

As has been stated many times by many posters and fans of Civ throughout the years... It is not supposed to be a historical simulator. At least it wasn't in the past. But with things like this unique ability for Mongolia... It sure seems like it tried to become a historical simulator. There is a way to get the flavor of a Genghis Khan without shoehorning a player into a particular strategy in order to take advantage of their bonuses.

 

[kaltorak]

It is not supposed to be a historical simulator.

Can you elaborate?
If you mean everything is not supposed to be like it happened in history, I agree. But if you mean, that the game should be a perfect balanced competitive chess type of game, instead of an empire simulator, I disagree.

EDIT: IMO one of the mistakes civ5 did was trying to make their leaders play to win like if they were players playing chess, instead of acting like civilization leaders

 

[dexters]

Yeah Mongolia is not a fun Civ to play, its UA funnels you into a tight scope of strategies, unless you just want to play a normal game and make use of the Keshiks but not your UA, which is possible.

That said, they are great to have as AI opponents. I like to play my games with a lot of interactions with city states so when I see Mongols around, I know there will be trouble.

EDIT: IMO one of the mistakes civ5 did was trying to make their leaders play to win like if they were players playing chess, instead of acting like civilization leaders

I hear this alot, but I don't recall previous Civ games; leaders having more character. In fact, in the Civ3 preview video, the point is made that when you meet the AI leaders, they start off in character but immediately jump out of it as game progresses.

The AI has been programmed to attempt to win forever, it's just that Civ5 took it to the next level. AI is a lot craftier in Civ5 and constantly plots behind your back.
Saying the AI is playing to win also implied the AI is all the same, but it isn't. Each AI has a preferred grand strategy. Such as the Huns and Mongols preferring early wars on one extreme. And Venice, Greece, Austria having a lock on city states. With the rest falling in-between. They all pursue their individual quirks and UA specific strategies in conjunction with trying to win.

The Agenda layer for AI leaders in Civ6 could satisfy you, but the core idea of having AI play to win is a nice one to have. You end up with more epic games than passive AIs who had all the tools to win but lets you win anyways.
If an AI that could win fails to win, there has to be a reason, such as being at war. Otherwise, it feels empty.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As has been stated many times by many posters and fans of Civ throughout the years... It is not supposed to be a historical simulator. At least it wasn't in the past. But with things like this unique ability for Mongolia... It sure seems like it tried to become a historical simulator. There is a way to get the flavor of a Genghis Khan without shoehorning a player into a particular strategy in order to take advantage of their bonuses.

You can't get away without some UA shoehorning, unless you want to make a dynamic system where every civ starts pretty equal and develops their UA over time.

There are only a few ways to give civs unique bonuses. You have general stuff like food/hammers/science bonuses, special abilities, and then military unique bonuses.

If you don't want to see much shoehorning play, you wind up mostly giving out general bonuses...at which point it becomes a question of which general bonus is most useful. Special abilities like crossing mountains or seeing further can be interesting, but don't always mesh well with the civs. Military uniques are going to "shoehorn" in the capacity that they encourage using their advantage.

Mongols have a particularly high-end UU under the poor "ranged > everything before bombers/nukes" setup in Civ V. All of their mounted + their generals are better than normal, but people emphasize the keshiks because they're tip-top tier beatsticks. However, that does let you win more effectively in that period.

Contrast that with something like Korea, which is basically just a science machine. As a result they're pretty strong at most things, but especially getting into later eras faster. I don't see how this is fundamentally better than Mongolia; they have minimal unique timing or play options.

Traits allowed leaders to be interchangeable between civs, but while UA don't always offer great play variability they do more so than traits, which only marginally altered what decisions you'd make across a game.

UA isn't perfect but it's the better model between the two. If you want to say that it wasn't always implemented well I'd agree.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Well I guess that's true. But there should be at least one thing about the civ that isn't directing the player to a specific playstyle. That's why I like the idea of unique ability for the civ and a trait for the leader.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[keiselhorn13]

You can't get away without some UA shoehorning, unless you want to make a dynamic system where every civ starts pretty equal and develops their UA over time.

I agree. And something like that was CivBE. There were UAs but that didn't made the civs that diverse... many of the customisation would come from affinity, policies and unit customisation. At least it in vanilla, it didn't direct your civ so strongly towards a certain VC. What if Firaxis wants something closer to that on Civ6.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

EDIT: IMO one of the mistakes civ5 did was trying to make their leaders play to win like if they were players playing chess, instead of acting like civilization leaders

The AI should not game throw. It is operating under victory condition rules and it should play that way. Maybe it prefers one VC to another out of flavor, but the mistake is making the AI throw the game on purpose, not making it try.

Game throwing was a vile problem in IV and we don't need it back. That's one area I will say V smashed IV to pieces without hesitation. None of this 3 cities by 1 AD on immortal crap in Civ IV, then peace vassal and donate tech freely to play or other AI to guarantee self-loss. V's AI wasn't good but at least it tried.

I agree. And something like that was CivBE. There were UAs but that didn't made the civs that diverse... many of the customisation would come from affinity, policies and unit customisation. At least it in vanilla, it didn't direct your civ so strongly towards a certain VC. What if Firaxis wants something closer to that on Civ6.

Conquest-based uniques only came off as "helps with one VC" because of the tall vs wide cancer in Civ V. More efficient conquest of cities could very much help you towards science or other victories absent that constraint.

 

[AriochIV]

The AI should not game throw. It is operating under victory condition rules and it should play that way. Maybe it prefers one VC to another out of flavor, but the mistake is making the AI throw the game on purpose, not making it try.

Game throwing was a vile problem in IV and we don't need it back. That's one area I will say V smashed IV to pieces without hesitation. None of this 3 cities by 1 AD on immortal crap in Civ IV, then peace vassal and donate tech freely to play or other AI to guarantee self-loss. V's AI wasn't good but at least it tried.

There are no doubt some (especially those who prefer multiplayer) who would rather that the AI factions try to play like human players trying to win the game instead of roleplaying civilizations in a virtual world. But as a single-player game I agree that this was one of the major shortcomings of Civ V compared to earlier titles.

For starters, the AI is terrible at acting like a human player. It's much easier to get an AI faction to behave like a character in a story, reacting to situations around it and according to its attitudes and relations.

Second, it makes the diplomacy system and peaceful interaction with AI civilizations irrelevant. It's not possible to make and keep allies when an eventual backstab is inevitable, so making nice with your neighbors is a waste of effort. The only "diplomacy" in Civ V involed trading luxury resources and bribing city-states, both of which are economic activities that have nothing to do with meaningful diplomatic interaction. An important part of the enjoyment of single-player Civilization is not just achieving the victory conditions, but enjoying the experience of building a nation and buildings relationships (both friendly and hostile) with your neighbors.

 

[dexters]

There are no doubt some (especially those who prefer multiplayer) who would rather that the AI factions try to play like human players trying to win the game instead of roleplaying civilizations in a virtual world. But as a single-player game I agree that this was one of the major shortcomings of Civ V compared to earlier titles.

For starters, the AI is terrible at acting like a human player. It's much easier to get an AI faction to behave like a character in a story, reacting to situations around it and according to its attitudes and relations.

Second, it makes the diplomacy system and peaceful interaction with AI civilizations irrelevant. It's not possible to make and keep allies when an eventual backstab is inevitable, so making nice with your neighbors is a waste of effort. The only "diplomacy" in Civ V involed trading luxury resources and bribing city-states, both of which are economic activities that have nothing to do with meaningful diplomatic interaction. An important part of the enjoyment of single-player Civilization is not just achieving the victory conditions, but enjoying the experience of building a nation and buildings relationships (both friendly and hostile) with your neighbors.

The AI is not acting like a human player in Civ5. They play to win in-character. I hear this criticism a lot, but it I don't really agree.

I'm also not a big MP player, in fact, I want my SP experience. Perhaps we all want something a little different from SP, but as mentioned upthread, the AI shouldn't be throwing the game for the sake of being in character.

As for the inability to keep stable relations. It's worth noting this is not a function of the AI trying to win, but how the AI approaches the game. Rather than an iterative relationship model set out in Civ3 and 4, friendships in Civ5 are temporary and common interests rule. There are reset points on relationships in the game and players are often given a choice to align with one set of Civ or another. It's not something the game imposes on the player. But I can see it being a problem if players play like they do in Civ4 and expect the same results. They won't.

But non-permanent relations aside, usually, there's a give and take. Your former best friend may not like you much anymore, but the Civ you didn't care much for in the early game may have a lot in common with you.
The diplomatic game is dynamic in Civ5. Not static and dead. That's not playing like a human, that's just a mechanic of game design they put into Civ5 because the AI can actually read the map, and plan ahead. I've asked Soren about this in the past and the AI in Civ 3 and 4 doesn't make plans. They calculate turn by turn what to do, and the game uses the attitude modifiers to keep the AI grounded, this is why they couldn't do what they are doing with Civ5 now.

 

[Thormodr]

Both were good. I like cIV's traits but there are some nifty Civilization 5 abilities like Venice's or the Shoshone. So, I would like a combination of that.

 

[Thormodr]

There are no doubt some (especially those who prefer multiplayer) who would rather that the AI factions try to play like human players trying to win the game instead of roleplaying civilizations in a virtual world. But as a single-player game I agree that this was one of the major shortcomings of Civ V compared to earlier titles.

For starters, the AI is terrible at acting like a human player. It's much easier to get an AI faction to behave like a character in a story, reacting to situations around it and according to its attitudes and relations.

Second, it makes the diplomacy system and peaceful interaction with AI civilizations irrelevant. It's not possible to make and keep allies when an eventual backstab is inevitable, so making nice with your neighbors is a waste of effort. The only "diplomacy" in Civ V involed trading luxury resources and bribing city-states, both of which are economic activities that have nothing to do with meaningful diplomatic interaction. An important part of the enjoyment of single-player Civilization is not just achieving the victory conditions, but enjoying the experience of building a nation and buildings relationships (both friendly and hostile) with your neighbors.

Agreed. That was one of the things I found so off putting about Civilization 5. The AI trying to act human. Thankfully they removed the "rage quit" AI behaviour at least.

To me, I felt like at least in cIV, the AI was acting as a character in a story. It was participating in the story for your enjoyment. Not some clumsy, hamfisted wanna be human that ended up annoying you more than anything.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

The AI is not acting like a human player in Civ5. They play to win in-character. I hear this criticism a lot, but it I don't really agree.

I'm also not a big MP player, in fact, I want my SP experience. Perhaps we all want something a little different from SP, but as mentioned upthread, the AI shouldn't be throwing the game for the sake of being in character.

As for the inability to keep stable relations. It's worth noting this is not a function of the AI trying to win, but how the AI approaches the game. Rather than an iterative relationship model set out in Civ3 and 4, friendships in Civ5 are temporary and common interests rule. There are reset points on relationships in the game and players are often given a choice to align with one set of Civ or another. It's not something the game imposes on the player. But I can see it being a problem if players play like they do in Civ4 and expect the same results. They won't.

But non-permanent relations aside, usually, there's a give and take. Your former best friend may not like you much anymore, but the Civ you didn't care much for in the early game may have a lot in common with you.
The diplomatic game is dynamic in Civ5. Not static and dead. That's not playing like a human, that's just a mechanic of game design they put into Civ5 because the AI can actually read the map, and plan ahead. I've asked Soren about this in the past and the AI in Civ 3 and 4 doesn't make plans. They calculate turn by turn what to do, and the game uses the attitude modifiers to keep the AI grounded, this is why they couldn't do what they are doing with Civ5 now.

At first I really didn't like the way diplomatic relations worked in Civ 5. But it was just because I was way too used to the way diplomacy was handled in 4. After playing the game a bunch of times and moving up in levels, I really appreciate the dynamic diplomacy. I especially like how things dramatically can shift in the late game based on ideologies. I still feel like you can achieve all of that with a blending of traits and unique ability. In fact I feel like the traits can help to flavor the way AI approaches its strategy and diplomacy.

 

[dexters]

At first I really didn't like the way diplomatic relations worked in Civ 5. But it was just because I was way too used to the way diplomacy was handled in 4. After playing the game a bunch of times and moving up in levels, I really appreciate the dynamic diplomacy. I especially like how things dramatically can shift in the late game based on ideologies. I still feel like you can achieve all of that with a blending of traits and unique ability. In fact I feel like the traits can help to flavor the way AI approaches its strategy and diplomacy.

Yep, BNW really played to that aspect of the Civ5 AI.

The ideological battles of the late game can be intense and is probably the best implementation of the 'bloc' system yet. When you get a divided world, you get some very interesting combinations of alliances and wars.

I would also clarify it's not impossible to have a Civ as a friend/friendly/DoF throughout the game, I've done it. But there are some pre-requisites.

The civs who can stay your friends longest are usually small and their area of concern is limited, so the player's politicking around the world won't impact them not cause them to become angry. They usually fight the same enemies you do. And often, you both share the same enemies because the Civ picking on them is also your enemy and you're trying to stop them. That's actually not unrealistic either.

Expecting your closest rival score/powerwise to be a long term friend is a bit trickier, but still possible, depending on VC and who they are. Venice vs. Greeks = not going to end well. Venice vs. a non-City-state aligned Civ could work.

As always things like proximity, shared borders all play into the relationship and likelihood of a hot war. But that's been true since Civ3 days.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Second, it makes the diplomacy system and peaceful interaction with AI civilizations irrelevant.

No, it doesn't.

Blaming poor diplomacy design on the AI trying to win isn't reasonable. Diplomacy was similarly fruitless in competitive MP. That's not an AI issue at all, that's a design issue through and through.

They COULD make it relevant, even crucial to succeed, if they were willing to go that route.

Saying the AI is bad so we should make it worse does not make a convincing case that the AI should game throw.

To me, I felt like at least in cIV, the AI was acting as a character in a story. It was participating in the story for your enjoyment. Not some clumsy, hamfisted wanna be human that ended up annoying you more than anything.

Yeah, because 3 city Pericles letting Khmer expand to 12 cities peacefully then bending over to him, becoming his vassal, and giving away technologies for free is SOOOOOO not clumsy, hamfisted, and was certainly greatly immersive!

No, actually that sucked immersion clean out of the game, as game throwing tends to do. If you did that in a MP game repeatedly you'd probably be thrown out of the playing group, yet in SP it's okay because it's role play?

If the AI trying to win isn't fun, then maybe the game's rules should be altered in a way where engaging in diplomacy has actual incentives so that the AI playing to win is fun.

As opposed to making up rules, having the AI ignore them and game throw, and having a model that doesn't function in MP.

 

[Thormodr]

No, it doesn't.

Blaming poor diplomacy design on the AI trying to win isn't reasonable. Diplomacy was similarly fruitless in competitive MP. That's not an AI issue at all, that's a design issue through and through.

They COULD make it relevant, even crucial to succeed, if they were willing to go that route.

Saying the AI is bad so we should make it worse does not make a convincing case that the AI should game throw.



Yeah, because 3 city Pericles letting Khmer expand to 12 cities peacefully then bending over to him, becoming his vassal, and giving away technologies for free is SOOOOOO not clumsy, hamfisted, and was certainly greatly immersive!

No, actually that sucked immersion clean out of the game, as game throwing tends to do. If you did that in a MP game repeatedly you'd probably be thrown out of the playing group, yet in SP it's okay because it's role play?

If the AI trying to win isn't fun, then maybe the game's rules should be altered in a way where engaging in diplomacy has actual incentives so that the AI playing to win is fun.

As opposed to making up rules, having the AI ignore them and game throw, and having a model that doesn't function in MP.

*Shrug* I like to roll with the punches. Dealing with adversity is part of the fun in the playing the game for me.

I have seen the same complaints in board games. The Eurogamers like to have no secret information and everything has to be totally equal so that they can somehow prove that they are a better player. Their idea of a perfect game is zero randomness and that ends up being dull after awhile.

I am the opposite. I like some randomness in my games. Life can be unpredictable so I don't have a problem with games being that way. Obviously you feel different. C'est la vie.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

*Shrug* I like to roll with the punches. Dealing with adversity is part of the fun in the playing the game for me.

I have seen the same complaints in board games. The Eurogamers like to have no secret information and everything has to be totally equal so that they can somehow prove that they are a better player. Their idea of a perfect game is zero randomness and that ends up being dull after awhile.

I am the opposite. I like some randomness in my games. Life can be unpredictable so I don't have a problem with games being that way. Obviously you feel different. C'est la vie.

You quoted my post, but you haven't said anything to address the points made. Did you quote me by mistake? Where was I talking about randomness in that post?

 

[Thormodr]

You quoted my post, but you haven't said anything to address the points made. Did you quote me by mistake? Where was I talking about randomness in that post?

No need to be abrasive. Good day.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No need to be abrasive. Good day.

I was discussing the relative merits of AI game throwing vs not doing so, not the merit of having randomness in the game. Those are different concepts, to the point where discussion of randomness is non-sequitur.

If quoting me wasn't a mistake, I'm not the one being abrasive. I do not feel an expectation that posters quoting each other address/say something relevant to what they quoted to be unreasonable.

 

[Westwall]

People repeat this over and over again, and it doesn't become more accurate with repetition.

The UA doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of the whole civ. The CS stuff is irrelevant mostlly, what matters are Keshiks+Khan+movement bonus. That combination is extremely synergistic, flavorful, and powerful. The Mongols are actually one of the best designs in CiV...

That doesn't make their city-state bonus any less useless.