Do you think that the expansion will really improve this game?

[sketch162000]

1UPT may indeed explain the slow building times of units. There are now fewer and more important units, and that may be because of the traffic problems large amount of units might create. But I'm not sure if fewer units is actually a bad thing at all.

What 1UPT can't explain, are long construction times of buildings. There are no real connection between buildings and 1UPT.

I think you pegged the reason that buildings are so slow inadvertently. The game is meant to have fewer, more valuable units.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe that some of the developers were talking about how in Civ V, you could possibly go through an entire game with some of the same units you started with, using upgrades and promotions. More concretely, the insta-heal option is strong evidence that players are not really supposed to rely on replacing fallen soldiers, but are only meant to use a handful of units. Otherwise, you'd carpet the map.

This means that your cities won't be producing units after the first few. The game forces you to produce something in order to end your turn, so it has to be buildings. In turn, buildings have to be expensive or players would run out of options quickly. Making units more expensive wouldn't work because you would get to a point where they would be obsolete before being completed. Adding more buildings would directly contradict the streamlining directive, and more buildings might dilute their usefulness.

This less of an obvious problem in the mid to late game when cites are capable of producing gold and beakers. However, at the start of the game, players have less options in buildings AND they don't have access to beaker and gold production because the techs have not been discovered yet. In this scenario, players run out of building options early and end up just overproducing units, which causes a Carpet o' Doom and breaks 1upt.

So, instead, buildings just take a while to produce. Unfortunately, this makes the game boring if you are at peace because you are literally doing nothing except hitting "Next Turn" for long stretches of time.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

But, but... Do you also write posts with some On-Topic facts that relate to a hypothetical expansion which would really improve this game?
There are literally hundreds of specific threads that deal with any and all controversial gameplay "concepts". Share your opinions or observations in these places.
Here, you were asked to speculate on Firaxis' devs capacity to create a worthy expansion.
Being constantly critical over current issues is equal to having typed a simple "NO" as your final answers and be done with this subject instead of insisting on thoughts we've been brushed over, soaked and wiped out with for months.
We know, alright.
Get over it.

 

[de Maistre]

It should, but it is impossible to say to what degree at this point. I think that the game will be made playable eventually, even if it will never be considered a high point in the franchise.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Being constantly critical over current issues is equal to having typed a simple "NO" as your final answers and be done with this subject instead of insisting on thoughts we've been brushed over, soaked and wiped out with for months.

The reason why I point out to the current issues as the brick wall preventing an expansion improving the game, is that I think that the problems are fundemental to the game mechanics, i.e. they took it the wrong way, and even if they made the game work well within current mechanics they would still have a shoddy game.

The only way IMO the game could be improved at this stage is to dump about 85% of the mechanics and go for the tried-and-tested. Firaxis are not going to admit though that they did wrong with the mechanics (for financial reasons).

If you don't like my analysis and opinion you don't have to read it, or better yet you can put up constructive posts which refute it. But don't lambast us for giving honest opinion and detailing our reasons for it.

 

[JBConquests]

I believe that if there is an expansion that it will add some new features to further spice up the gameplay. I believe they will be successful at it. I believe we may see some concepts from Civ 4 or previous versions of Civ come back in an expansion but they will likely be redesigned and different from what we are used to.

Why would Firaxis want to use an expansion to convert the game back to Civ 4 rules. Civ 4 was fun and yes I agree that it is a much deeper game but I think it is time for a new game. Honestly I was bored with Civ 4 and I am glad to have something new.

 

[Tatran]

The only way IMO the game could be improved at this stage is to dump about 85% of the mechanics

After playing the game for one month, I came to the same conclusion.
I really don't like the restriction/penalty approach to keep balance at all costs.
Penalties are by definition not fun and the purpose of a game is having fun.

 

[vandyr]

I'm having fun. 1upt for the win, by the way...what you call traffic jams I call logistics. I will take 1upt over sod's any day of the week.

 

[Civsassin]

I'm having fun. 1upt for the win, by the way...what you call traffic jams I call logistics. I will take 1upt over sod's any day of the week.

Good call. I think 1UPT is awesome. It presents so many interesting challenges. A system like it would be unworkable without the hex enhancement. Together they present some interesting problems to solve.

 

[JohnnyW]

Good call. I think 1UPT is awesome. It presents so many interesting challenges. A system like it would be unworkable without the hex enhancement. Together they present some interesting problems to solve.

Warfare against the AI has never been very problematic for me. 1) use blocked ranged units 2) win.

 

[Kamilian]

just got a new computer, was excited to buy, download, play civ5 after waiting for so long...
and i was kind of disappointed.
a lot of flash, but very little substance... i saw it had rave reviews on one hand, and really crappy by other people, but thought i could make it somewhere in the middle.
but no.
the graphics and everything is beautiful.
but i feel everything has been so utterly dumbed down it's ridiculous.
for instance, for the first time ever, no espionage whatsoever... seriously? that's not at all realistic. empires had agents and spies for AGES, and the spy game is alive and well today, too, but not in civ5 where you cant do anything like that anymore. (again, WHAT?!)
im advancing with tech about ten times faster than i can construct buildings and/or units... by the time i finish one building or unit, its practically gone obsolete! while somehow the AI manages to field a massive army, often, i usually am down to five fighting units... because i have to spend so much time just trying to improve/develop my cities for them to be VIABLE
United Nations... its pretty much pointless now... why would i want to waste time building it when instead i can let some other civ waste their production points on it, save up money, and then recruit multiple city-states as allies to vote for me and win by default? the UN was always flawed in each execution, but it at least had a point before.

an expansion would have to change A LOT of the fundamentals here... it's not enough to just add a unit here and there and whet our appetite with a fancy new empire. since i already bought the product and have it, will i stop playing it? no. but i remember civ2, civ3, and civ4 (vanilla or otherwise for each of these) as games that really just sucked me in to the point where i'd start at 7 a.m., and by the time i finished the game at its final turn, it was midnight, and i still wanted to play on, clicking that "just one more turn!" button. with this, i honestly just kind of was like "meh" once i won the diplomatic victory, and turned it off.
i hope an expansion is made to really fix it, because for the money we paid, i expected better. i'll trade in fancy graphics for smart, flexible, creative empire-building story gameplay any day.
/endrant

 

[Nares]

A combination of options 2 and 3.

They won't fix issues such as a poor diplomacy system, shallow city state interactions, mediocre tech tree, bland social policy system, and several other issues that make the game extremely dissatisfying, leading most to blame 1UPT.

They may take a knee-jerk approach and try to brute force 1UPT out, because the ignorant masses have named it their scapegoat; the game will still be bad for all the reasons I state above.

They probably will implement additional features, perhaps some which had appeared in CIV, or perhaps some which had not. Most likely, they'll continue using CiV as a test platform for CivWorlds (ie Civ Facebook). I fully expect any new features to fail for all the same reasons the current features do; not challenging, not rewarding, poorly thought out, developed or otherwise poorly integrated into the game.

The impression I've gotten is that whatever philosophies gave us the mediocrity of CiV are very likely still in place, even after the departure of Shafer. At best it's a project for some less experienced developer to sharpen their teeth on, which is to say, don't hold your breath for any significant improvements.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

If you don't like my analysis and opinion you don't have to read it, or better yet you can put up constructive posts which refute it. But don't lambast us for giving honest opinion and detailing our reasons for it.

Oh, but i *DO* agree on your reasoning too.
It's just that i've been soooooo upset recently & before with the whole "unconstructive" criticism exposed in great lengths by a number of specific forum members. Won't give names, they certainly know who they are.

It's quite easy to turn every rational opinions into worthy arguments for anything; it's the total reversal optimistic comments that are tougher to formulate and backup with solid reasons.... 1) Cuz, the Vanilla gameplay is indeed a mess of strange_weird features__PRESENTLY.. 2) Even if we try very hard to tolerate such a gimmicky-state, it's the Firaxis_2K driven hype we were led to believe that makes our comprehensible reactions fairplay.. and 3) Expansions are a theory until proven guilty or innocent.

I may be overly reactive myself -- if so, i honestly regret the interruption. Blame it on my personality & sometimes, emotional character.

AFAIC, i'm now goin' along just fine with this mindset; Trust the devs (well, what remains at the staffing desks, btw!), they'll have another shot or two at it. Willing to wait and hoping my investment will eventually payoff - big time.

 

[Ricci]

Wu Zetian's proverb:

If you step hard over a turd you will expand the ..

That is, if even the stepping over takes place.

 

[Civsassin]

Warfare against the AI has never been very problematic for me. 1) use blocked ranged units 2) win.

It is often not quite that easy. Although the AI isn't a very good opponent, there are times when you have to deal with a lot of modern troops. In my last game, I attacked SIAM across an ocean in a continents style map. His captital was on the coast and very well defended by both ships and modern units. I had to get my units across the ocean and keep them protected. I decided to take a city that was somewhat isolated to establish a beach head, but there wasn't enough room near the city for many units, so I had to keep destroyers and carriers near my units to protect them from enemy destroyers and submarines.

It was an interesting siege, and it took some planning and thnking to put together. I enjoyed it, and it was made interesting by 1UPT and the hex enhancement.

I think the game is fundamentally sound, and in many ways is an excellent game. With some minor tweaks to the AI and robust expansions to add new and synergistic features, it can be as good, if not better, than CiIV.

If people don't like the 1UPT, hexes, or whatever features the game has, that's fine. I like them, and I enjoy the game very much. There are minor nuisances to me that are fixable, but the game is highly enjoyable.

 

[JohnnyW]

If people don't like the 1UPT, hexes, or whatever features the game has, that's fine. I like them, and I enjoy the game very much. There are minor nuisances to me that are fixable, but the game is highly enjoyable.

You misunderstand my opinion. I love 1upt and hexes, but civ5 is crap. Those two features were part of why I played the game as long as I did. I actually like many things about civ5, but as a whole I simply cannot stand the game. One of the most major problems is the freaking ******ation of the AI relative to any video game standard.

I mean it's cool that you got some interesting scenarios that you had fun figuring out against the AI, but in my experience those are extreme rarities where the feeling of punching a child repeatedly in the face is more the norm.

 

[Supr49er]

Is there anything Official regarding an Expansion pack?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Is there anything Official regarding an Expansion pack?

Plenty... 2K forums have threads worth of staff answers to specific issues.
V1167 (quick fixes) was just out (in dev calendar terms) two weeks ago.

Logically, *the* first Expansion would be out within a year of initial release with about three to five solid patches until then. Not counting some DLC packaging, i'd say next fall will be a sit_tight_on_your_seat for an edgy wait for some mysterious betters.
Officially.

 

[Civsassin]

You misunderstand my opinion. I love 1upt and hexes, but civ5 is crap. Those two features were part of why I played the game as long as I did. I actually like many things about civ5, but as a whole I simply cannot stand the game. One of the most major problems is the freaking ******ation of the AI relative to any video game standard.

I mean it's cool that you got some interesting scenarios that you had fun figuring out against the AI, but in my experience those are extreme rarities where the feeling of punching a child repeatedly in the face is more the norm.

Perhaps I did, but I still find the initial engagement to be fun. Once you've beaten the AI's initial troops, it's a matter of rote to move from city to city. What I find enjoyable is the initial strategic decisions:
- What mix of troops
- Which city to go after first
- Do I need ships
- Do I need aircraft
- etc.

That's the interesting and fun part. If you make a bad decision, the war can often take much longer than originally planned. My point was that it is not as simple as you make it out to be in the original post that I quoted.

 

[sketch162000]

What I find enjoyable is the initial strategic decisions:
- What mix of troops
- Which city to go after first
- Do I need ships
- Do I need aircraft
- etc.

None of which is exclusive to 1upt.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

...

I don't think this explanation is plausible. First of all, an unit represents a big group of soldiers, possibly an army. It's not that unrealistic if it takes more time to train an army than build some building. And even if it is unrealistic, there are many other unrealistic features already. I don't think many would have complained about it.

Armies would be reasonable, (though given the scale of the game they too should probably be able to stack). My question is, if units are meant to represent massive armies, (so huge that not only can't they deploy in the same tile, they can't even move through the same tile), then - Why are there unit types? An entire army of Catapults? Really?

It's terrible design plain and simple. It's like having individual tanks and soldiers be the units in a game that represents division level combat and only makes provisions for perhaps 30 units on a side. This is the kind of thing that should have been ferreted out long before a single line of code was wasted. The game has a lot of problems in a lot of areas. I wouldn't like it even if the combat was excellent simply because I don't play Civ games when I want to play a wargame. Nonetheless 1upt is the most glaring error in a game that is full of glaring errors.