Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,846
Soren programmed the entire AI. I wouldn't be saying "did not do a whole lot of programming" if I were you.
Dreams of the Sulla Mod
- Thread starter BjoernLars
- Start date
Soren programmed the entire AI. I wouldn't be saying "did not do a whole lot of programming" if I were you.
Pazyryk
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 3,584
Bah! I hate this kind of thread but can't keep myself from posting anyway.
ICS. It should not be the optimal strategy. Fix it. No hard feelings from me.
It took me a little while to warm to civ5. The reason came down to this observation by Valkrion (which I paraphrase and add my own observations here): In civ4, you have a lot of little decisions to make that keep you busy every turn. They are mostly of little consequence and can be corrected later. (E.g., move the slider one turn. Too much? Move it back the next turn. There are many more examples like this.) In contrast, in civ5 you have many fewer decisions to make and the effects don't always manifest for a while. At first, I felt like I was just building stuff with no feel for what was going on. Now that I've played a bit, I spend a lot of time thinking about whether to push culture, gold, research, production or growth in a particular city. If I decide incorrectly, then I will be paying later (literally paying, e.g., for tiles because I underestimated the importance of culture). Now that I can relate the bad effects to my prior decisions, my enjoyment in vanila civ5 has grown a lot, and I'd say that (at least at this moment) it feels deeper than civ4.
I should also say that, after some REXing and near (but not quite) ICSing, I'm back to my more preferred civ style of really focusing on (and specializing) 5 or 6 cities. Notwithstanding the ICS problem (which does need to be fixed), I can say that my preferred 5-6 city approach works fine and is just as doable in civ5 as it was in civ4 (I tend to play on Emperor to Immortal in both, depending on whether I want to win 90% or get my but kicked more often). It took a while to learn to do this in civ5, probably longer than it took me to learn in civ4 (which was closer to previous version), but I learned it. So now I can make my 6 cities and win space race in 1966 on Emperor, which is pretty darn close to what I would do in civ4.
Now, I still think ICS-as-optimal-strategy needs to be fixed. It's silly if this strategy can get you space victory in 1200 (as some claim -- I don't have the wherewithal to test this). But it really isn't taking much away from my enjoyment at this time.
ICS. It should not be the optimal strategy. Fix it. No hard feelings from me.
It took me a little while to warm to civ5. The reason came down to this observation by Valkrion (which I paraphrase and add my own observations here): In civ4, you have a lot of little decisions to make that keep you busy every turn. They are mostly of little consequence and can be corrected later. (E.g., move the slider one turn. Too much? Move it back the next turn. There are many more examples like this.) In contrast, in civ5 you have many fewer decisions to make and the effects don't always manifest for a while. At first, I felt like I was just building stuff with no feel for what was going on. Now that I've played a bit, I spend a lot of time thinking about whether to push culture, gold, research, production or growth in a particular city. If I decide incorrectly, then I will be paying later (literally paying, e.g., for tiles because I underestimated the importance of culture). Now that I can relate the bad effects to my prior decisions, my enjoyment in vanila civ5 has grown a lot, and I'd say that (at least at this moment) it feels deeper than civ4.
I should also say that, after some REXing and near (but not quite) ICSing, I'm back to my more preferred civ style of really focusing on (and specializing) 5 or 6 cities. Notwithstanding the ICS problem (which does need to be fixed), I can say that my preferred 5-6 city approach works fine and is just as doable in civ5 as it was in civ4 (I tend to play on Emperor to Immortal in both, depending on whether I want to win 90% or get my but kicked more often). It took a while to learn to do this in civ5, probably longer than it took me to learn in civ4 (which was closer to previous version), but I learned it. So now I can make my 6 cities and win space race in 1966 on Emperor, which is pretty darn close to what I would do in civ4.
Now, I still think ICS-as-optimal-strategy needs to be fixed. It's silly if this strategy can get you space victory in 1200 (as some claim -- I don't have the wherewithal to test this). But it really isn't taking much away from my enjoyment at this time.
Afforess
The White Wizard
Soren programmed the entire AI. I wouldn't be saying "did not do a whole lot of programming" if I were you.
Reread your comment. Eventually, it will dawn on you what the flaw in your logic is.
Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,846
Reread your comment. Eventually, it will dawn on you what the flaw in your logic is.
Oh haha. That Civ4 doesn't have an AI?
Sometimes I forget how immature the general CFC poster is.
jenks
Prince
Reread your comment. Eventually, it will dawn on you what the flaw in your logic is.
I dont get it
!
Afforess
The White Wizard
Civ4 vanilla at any rate. BTS was a lot better in that respect, thanks to the Better AI guys (Blake, IIRC).
You know, there is such a thing as "experience".
I really don't get why it should have been impossible to learn from Civ4. As far as I know, it was the best selling Civ title ever. So it seems to be obvious that it was not *that* bad actually.
Do you mind explaining what you mean by "playing the game as intended"?
For me the intention of a civ-like game would be to offer options from which the player may pick.
When the combination of offers he picked turns out to be successful, he will feel satisfied when having done so for the first time.
When he learns that this combination is by far the most successful one, almost regardless of any circumstances (map type/size, difficulty level, number of opponents, whatever) then this may indicate a general flaw in the design.
So, once again: *how* is the game really intended to be played?
And if this intention is different from ICS and by doing this means winning, how comes that not-intended ways of playing seems to be superior?
LAnkou
Breizh A Tao
my 2 cents (or my 0,028€ since i'm french and use Euros...)
I really enjoy the game and find it fun because:
a) I don't care about some management like science overflow (even if it could be nice)
b) I don't care to beat deity level, having fun at prince now and i may go up a little, but It doesn't matter for me if i don't have the best score of the group
ie: Even if I'm an Hardcore fan, i'm not an hardcore player...
I find that a lot of critics comes from competitive players (and Sullla is one of them). MP games, beating deity easily, the overeffectiveness of ICS, these are complaints of competitive players...
There are some issues with the game, but the greatest for me right now is the anticlimatic victory screen...
Maybe Civ V is not a competitive game, yet...
I really enjoy the game and find it fun because:
a) I don't care about some management like science overflow (even if it could be nice)
b) I don't care to beat deity level, having fun at prince now and i may go up a little, but It doesn't matter for me if i don't have the best score of the group
ie: Even if I'm an Hardcore fan, i'm not an hardcore player...
I find that a lot of critics comes from competitive players (and Sullla is one of them). MP games, beating deity easily, the overeffectiveness of ICS, these are complaints of competitive players...
There are some issues with the game, but the greatest for me right now is the anticlimatic victory screen...
Maybe Civ V is not a competitive game, yet...
