Dont want Civ VI before 2020 ;-)

[Naokaukodem]

I thought you were saying that 1UPT was unanimously considered a failure. I must have misunterstood.

Actually I was saying -and still do- that 1UPT is unanimously considered a failure because of AI... is this right now or must I repeat myself thousand times ?

 

[iamdanno]

It isn't unanimous. Myself and many others feel that 1UPT is better, regardless of AI

 

[Bad Wolf]

Civ V is pretty close to perfect as is... there are things I can nitpick because I've played the everloving crap out of it, same with all of us. It's incredible how much they've added since Vanilla. I love how streamlined everything is, just makes the game flow quicker than the inarguably more involved and complex Civ IV.

Personally, I would rather they do one more expansion for Civ V than go right into Civ VI. As I said, the game is close to perfect... so why not perfect it?

 

[CHEESE!]

It may not be much better, if at all, but it's a chance to get better and it really couldn't get much worse. Other than hexes and easily combine able mods, which would presumably carry over to 6, there's not much to like about 5.

Um, leader screens? Pretty damn important, if you ask me.

 

[epicivfreak]

Um, leader screens? Pretty damn important, if you ask me.

Pretty damn useless and annoying, if you ask me.

 

[Naokaukodem]

regardless of AI

Your problem comes from here.

 

[CHEESE!]

Pretty damn useless and annoying, if you ask me.

Well, then, off you go back to Civ IV, I guess. If you don't like the massive immersion aspect of the leader screens, I really don't understand what you'll have to like in the immersive experience of Civ V generally.

 

[crazyotto65]

I say ditch the 1UPT but keep the hexes!

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I say ditch the 1UPT but keep the hexes!

Why would we need hexes with stacks? What would be the point? It could just go back to diamonds if they dropped 1upt and we'd never notice the difference.

 

[Browd]

Yes we would. Hexes allow better, more nuanced graphics on maps, IMO. Please no return to cludgy-looking CIV maps.

 

[epicivfreak]

Yes we would. Hexes allow better, more nuanced graphics on maps, IMO. Please no return to cludgy-looking CIV maps.

That and I would hope it was a test of the fanbase to see if the masses would be ready for a buckyball map!

 

[cinattra]

SMAC, CIV 2,3,4 and 5 are the only games I have ever bought no later than the week they were released.

I would pay $100 bucks for a Civ 6 that truly gave me the game experience I want so desperately to get from this series. I just love the idea of making history.

Civ5 in my opinion distanced itself too much from its predecessors. But that's something it needed to do so that new things could be added to the gameplay. Many of the things that people are wanting from the game has actually been in the previous Civs and others just want Civ4 with better graphics. It is time to revisit what was done right in previous iterations of Civ and see how they can fit into current gameplay. I can hardly wait until the process begins if it hasn't started already.

My hope is that Civ6 vanilla will make me forget SMAC. Which is a freaking tall order.

 

[Scirocco16V]

1. Someone who hasn't actually played BNW isn't qualified to criticize the current state of the game. The changes resulted in huge game play differences in the middle to late game.
2. Before BNW "tall" 3 city play was boring in the later game. After BNW it isn't boring anymore, there's still so much more to do. One of the triumphs of BNW is it expanded to avenues of conflict beyond military warfare.
3. Domination victories w/ wide empires are still very much doable in BNW.
4. I disliked unit stacks in IV. I really like 1UPT in V. I'd be very disappointed if we went back to stacks. Hexes are also good because you don't have to keep track of how many diagonal moves you make (1st diagonal was 1 tile, 2nd was 2 tiles, 3rd was 1, etc. with squares).
5. I don't think I've seen Civ V use more than 1.5GB of memory. I believe the addressable limit for a 32-bit program is 3.5GB. What would we gain by making Civ 64 bit, other than slightly faster processing (there is a bit of a performance hit running 32bit programs on a 64bit OS).
6. Ok, so the AI could still be better, even though it has been massively improved since V's initial release. How will moving to VI magically fix that? It sounds like you're assuming that the AI issues are intrinsic to V's design and by doing a ground up re-write they'll magically go away. A complete re-design is just as likely to end up with AI like V vanilla.

 

[Naokaukodem]

1. Someone who hasn't actually played BNW isn't qualified to criticize the current state of the game. The changes resulted in huge game play differences in the middle to late game.
2. Before BNW "tall" 3 city play was boring in the later game. After BNW it isn't boring anymore, there's still so much more to do. One of the triumphs of BNW is it expanded to avenues of conflict beyond military warfare.
3. Domination victories w/ wide empires are still very much doable in BNW.
4. I disliked unit stacks in IV. I really like 1UPT in V. I'd be very disappointed if we went back to stacks. Hexes are also good because you don't have to keep track of how many diagonal moves you make (1st diagonal was 1 tile, 2nd was 2 tiles, 3rd was 1, etc. with squares).
5. I don't think I've seen Civ V use more than 1.5GB of memory. I believe the addressable limit for a 32-bit program is 3.5GB. What would we gain by making Civ 64 bit, other than slightly faster processing (there is a bit of a performance hit running 32bit programs on a 64bit OS).
6. Ok, so the AI could still be better, even though it has been massively improved since V's initial release. How will moving to VI magically fix that? It sounds like you're assuming that the AI issues are intrinsic to V's design and by doing a ground up re-write they'll magically go away. A complete re-design is just as likely to end up with AI like V vanilla.

Huh hoh. It seems that this post is nearly entirely directed at me.

1. So find me an ideas & suggestions forum were it is specified "for the ones who don't own expansions only" please.
2. It's damn, damn, DAMN boring to watch though, which is not a very good sign.
3. The way it is designed (wm diplo hits), it's pretty much conquer everything as quickly as possible or die.
4. It's a matter of taste, as AI is unable to efficiently manage 1UPT, which is a big hit to the gameplay, but as long as the difficulty can be upped in other ways it's not much of a big problem. For my part I'm unsure if I prefer the one over the other, the only thing I can tell is that when stacks when maximized were a gamble or first to move disavantaged (provided the two players know how to play and haveb approximatively same stacks with catapults included) which were making the game more of sit wars, it was frustrating because you couldn't use your lovely and hardly built units especially when you had war weariness and your opponent didn't want to make peace, now I think that Civ5 has yet a lot more frustrating elements in it which needs a lot of cold blood or "learning" (going backwards our feelings and good sense), so in this regard stacks were not more frustrating than global happiness or science linked to population.
5. Your question is rather "what would we gain if we would run Civ5 in 64 bits", because Civ6 will be 64 bits and use a lot more memory than Civ5 does now.
6. I don't say AI can be improved, I just say that 1UPT prevents it to be efficient. AI just can't handle 1UPT efficiently.

 

[mrwho]

The AI not being able to handle 1UPT is a failure of the AI. Not 1UPT. On the Civ V forums at least, most people agree with this. Your opinion ≠ unanimous.

When Civ VI comes out, you can pretty much guarantee that it will still be 1UPT. Taking back the old system would me a massive, massive step backwards, and a shot in the foot for the devs. They just need to focus on the AI a lot more when developing Civ 6 so 1UPT lives up to its potential.

(edit) Sorry about the necro. Completely forgot how old this post was :/

 

[Naokaukodem]

The AI not being able to handle 1UPT is a failure of the AI. Not 1UPT. On the Civ V forums at least, most people agree with this. Your opinion ≠ unanimous.

As I said I don't think that AI can improve that much in Civ6 to be able to handle the player. Because nowadays AIs are nowadays AIs. AIs just can barely beat the human in Chess, go figure in a game like Civ.

So knowing nowadays AI limitations, it's well fall back on the 1UPT design, which AI can't handle properly.

And I don't say my opinion = unanimous, I just talk by those forums experience.

When Civ VI comes out, you can pretty much guarantee that it will still be 1UPT. Taking back the old system would me a massive, massive step backwards, and a shot in the foot for the devs. They just need to focus on the AI a lot more when developing Civ 6 so 1UPT lives up to its potential.

As I said AI can't improve that much with nowadays computer no more than with our knowledge of artificial intelligence. So don't put your hopes up too much... for my part I don't see 1UPT be kept in Civ6.

 

[awesome]

at one point, they were talking about another expansion, but i think they changed their minds. they might change it back, i don't know.

 

[Krajzen]

1. So find me an ideas & suggestions forum were it is specified "for the ones who don't own expansions only" please.

So find me an ideas & suggestions forum where knowledge about current state of game isn't required to, you know, improve the state of game. It is like estimating future history of Russia without knowledge of fall of USSR.

3. The way it is designed (wm diplo hits), it's pretty much conquer everything as quickly as possible or die.

In BNW the faster you conquer the faster you die. You sir are blind man talking about colours.

 

[Naokaukodem]

So find me an ideas & suggestions forum where knowledge about current state of game isn't required to, you know, improve the state of game. It is like estimating future history of Russia without knowledge of fall of USSR.

Except that AI warfare stayed more or less the same, and that it's what I talked about. I don't think I have to own BNW to make an assumption on how to improve the game considering all I said previously.

In BNW the faster you conquer the faster you die. You sir are blind man talking about colours.

If I understand well, the diplo hits for going warmonger remain during all the course of the game. Considering that, it's useless and not preferable to wait between conquests, considering your enemies would just become stronger and mass denounce you. So if you are a conqueror, better making it fast isn't it ?

 

[Fabio1701]

civ5 is missing some flavour which SMAC and civ4 had (and I recently taught my sister civ4 so I got a rehash of it.) this flavour is in the government/social policies.

Which civ4, and especially with SMAC, I felt that I could really get into roleplaying the type of civ I wanted to be when choosing social policies. Now in civ5 I feel I make choices completly based on strategy, ie will it give me that one extra science or gold or great person. In civ4/SMAC I could choose a policy (like slavery, or monarchy) simply because I wanted to be a civ which would be like that.

BNW fixed this slightly with the order/freedom/autocracy policy tree, but until that point in the game it's all a bunch of stats. Very different from civ4/smac where you could rush by sacrificing people or money, or use certain weapons or not depending on these choices.

I don't know if another patch could bring this social policy flavour back. SMAC still has done it best and I would like civ6 to do that. In the mean time, an expansion would be cool if it could make espionage more intersteing, civilwars and nation breakups, more future tech.