Dreams of the Sulla Mod

Highlighted and bolded for your convenience.

He never said there was a hard limit, but rather that the rapidly increasing size of the foodbox makes it impractical and rare to have that large cities.

 

Its been extremely disappointing, Chibiabos, to see you overlook the major flaws in Civ IV that are even worse than the flaws in Colonization.

What are the positive aspects of Civ IV?

One unit per tile leading to interesting combat, being able to actually having to decide what to build in cities instead of just building everything, not having to do meaningless and cheap changes of a slider every turn just to eek out one turn quicker tech discoveries when all you really want to do is "End Turn", the empty victories over AIs where war is so boring just moving stacks onto cities and diplomacy just manipulation of stats -- these problems in Civ IV before Civ V you don't see as serious issues?

This fanboyishness is really shocking and disappointing to see in you, Chibiabos, as well as the reviewers giving it scores even close to Civ V's. I was hoping you'd accept the faults as faults and fix Civ IV in a mod, but sad to say i don't think that's going to happen because you don't see any real positives with Civ V and outright state you can't figure out why the rest of us are so happy with this iteration.

 

Am I missing something, or all this has nothing to do with modding ? One whole board for rants and name calling isn't enough anymore ?

 

This guy makes a good point.

 

You are failing to read what I've written then. I have NEVER overlooked flaws. Did you not even see where I state I can teach you a huge exploit / flaw allowing unbridled ICS?

IMO (I know that's hard for some of you to grasp):
- 1UPT
- Hexes
- CS's
- Less MM
- Streamlined tech tree
IMO (yes there's that opinion thing again) Civ5 returns strategic control to the Empire level where it should be (see CTP1/2 for how it's done right) and away from MM-hell city level. For the first time since Civ2 I am actually making NATIONAL decisions, and STRATEGIC decisions. That's Civilization to me!

I have no problems in making buildings/units and utilising them before they're obsolete. In fact, after the initial army production, I hardly make more units at all, relying on upgrading my existing army. This ain't Civ4 where you just "make another army". Civ5 allows you to grow and nuture your units from the ancient age. Many games my initial warrior ends the game as a highly promoted, highly decorated Mech Inf.

Yes there are huge problems with AI and diplomacy. But these do not break the game IMO. I'm giving Firaxis a chance to fix the issues before crucifying them. It's a pity not many other people are mature enough to do so.

I believe labelling someone a "fanboy" is against the rules here, but I won't make a fuss. I've been called worse before. I wouldn't call me a fanboy, I know and discuss the problems with Civ5. I also make comments against reviews that IMO are in poor taste, and quite single-minded in their goal.

It took over 12 months for AoD2 to be developed for Civ4Col. How do you know I'm not working on some mod to fix Civ5? Pretty presumptuous.

 

Because you have said you don't really find any serious faults in Civ V.

Sulla has no problem with hex tiles nor 1UPT, and neither do I. They are definite improvements, but Civ V has lost too much for those new fun things to make up for it.

Sulla, myself and a lot of fans are bashing Civ V for its bugs while you simply bash people who are miffed by the bugs. If we aren't posting "we love civ, everything is great," you essentially are saying you don't want to see it posted on the forums. You don't understand why that makes you sound like an over-loyal fanboy?

Techs come faster in my games than I can build units, even when I have a city really pimped out to 50+ hammers/turn. And Sulla's specific comment about a Research Lab costing 600 hammers versus United Nations 1,000 was a prime example. A late game regular building more than half the hammers of a late game wonder, that's atrocious!

I would love to see how you pimp your cities so you can build buildings and units in reasonable times. During a GA, with a very sweet spot loaded with fish and iron bonuses, I think I got a city somewhere above 90 hammers/turn, and it still took many turns to finish one lousy non-wonder building or a decent modern era unit -- more than twice the number of turns it took me to research anything.

Moderator Action: To keep the discussion civil, please stick to discussing the topic rather than making personal accusations against other members. Using the label 'fanboy' will often attract warnings for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

Where did I say that? I acknowledged the flaws Sulla mentioned in the review. I have also on many occasions on various forums discussed the various flaws of the game. Though these flaws don't make me claim Civ5 a failure. I find other ways to make my game be fun for me.

A personal opinion, and I respect that. I however enjoy the new direction, allowing me to focus on the national strategic direction of my Civ, rather than MM'ing cities. I now feel like an Emperor in charge of an Empire, rather than in charge of a collection of cities.

I'm sorry, but this time you got reported. I do not visit the general forums. I do not bash people "who are miffed by the bugs". Aside from a few threads in these modding forums, I have not participated on this entire forum for weeks. Check your facts first boy.

Like I said above, there really is no need to keep building units throughout the game. If you're careful with your units they will last the entire game.

BTW, you realise the UN is so cheap because you have to expend a lot of effort to get the CS's to vote for you right? Also, the RL doubles your base science. That's a big benefit, that needs a high cost.

Not sure where you're getting those figures from. This is from a recent diplo-victory. I was just about to build the UN (13 turns BTW, 1 with an engineer). Even with only +60 production I can build INF units in a few turns. Even a research lab is only 9.

 

Don't rise to it Dale, as the guy above said this is the friendly modding forum.

Only people who hate the game are allowed to be valid in their opinion here, and any issues they have with it we're duty bound to agree with them. Get with the program, geez.

 

This is actually the reason I hardly ever post at CFC.

 

Heh, why does this instantly make me think of Jon Shafer (aka Trip) as well?

 

I'd loathe to work at any game studio ever again. What's my excuse?

 

Moderator Action: Stick to the thread topic, please. Keep the slander out of it.

 

oh the drama.

 

yes he did, but he seems to mean very bad flaws to the point of the game being hopeless. He has discussed flaws and he think Civ V is a good game now, but it can become a truly great game in the future and exceed Civ IV

 

I know exactly what you did there - but seriously, if the only way you can make Civ5 look better is by trashing Civ4...

 

Well, not being able to finish buildings is only an issue if you expect to be able to build all buildings in all cites. These sorts of "expectations" come from civ4 (where you could build all buildings in all cities). I personally like the new way better. Likewise, the emphasis has shifted from "build new armies" to "upgrade existing armies." I don't have a strong "better" or "worse" opinion on this, but I can appreciate what the devs were doing in this change.

When civ5 fails to meet these expectations from civ4, some disappointment is natural. Before calling these things "major flaws," it might be worth the time to think about what they add to the game. In the case of buildings, you now have to choose which buildings will benefit you the most in a particular city. That's a little different than civ4. I'm not saying that you have to like it. Whether it makes the game better or worse is a matter of taste.

There are many, many similar changes from civ4 -> 5. Most seem to be aimed at shifting from city-level to empire-wide management and having fewer game elements that count for more (e.g., removing the slider so you have to manage gold and research separately and they are no longer equivalent/interchangeable as in civ4 -- I've heard some calling this "dumbing down" the game).

Edit: To get on topic, I would argue that a Sulla Mod or any of the various "rebalance" mods have tough job. If you rebalance back to civ4, you're going to end up with a civ4 game that doesn't mesh very well with new civ5 features (like too many units, a problem in civ4 but a worse problem when combined with 1upt).

 

Are you the most clever troll I've ever encountered, or is this just your first time using the Internet?

Moderator Action: Around here calling someone a troll is considered flaming. Not acceptable.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

Geez, so much for your thread BjoernLars... :/ That's what's happening when you want to say something good about someone on the Internet. Not that you don't know it Sulla, but I know your website, I'm grateful for all the work you've done for Civ4 and I hope that indeed in time you'll help to develop some mod to fix glaring problems with Civ5.

As for modding I'm full of doubt. I think I'll wait like 6 months and see whether any improvement will be seen, right now I still secretly hope that Firaxis is busy on finishing that half-done release...

Also, Dale, your accusations towards Sulla have no sense, I find his analysis of RB3 SG flawless, and I can't see all that "exploit abuse" you're talking about. All there is to see is that the game is not done, and needs to be fixed badly. By the way I don't understand this knee-jerk reaction of people who like Civ5 whenever someone comments on it unfavourably. If you can see flaws in the game in your Apolyton review why are you attacking others?

 

I don't post at Apolyton. I also don't attack others.

If you actually take the time to read my post on page 1, you'll see I'm actually highlighting that IMO Sulla would be looking for Civ4+, not a new take on an old idea.

And after reading his site, it's pretty obvious to anyone that is exactly what Sulla is looking for. Civ4+, not a new take on an old idea.

If you look at Civ5 as a new game, and not Civ4+, then the game isn't that bad. By itself, it's a decent game with problems, which are being addressed in patches I might add. What people complain about, is that the game is not Civ4+.

It's interesting that we went through the exact same thing with Civ3. It was not Civ2+.

 

Is it a better overall balanced play than civ IV BTS? Is it as fun with mods? Do any come close to the depth of the FfH mods?

For me...Nope.
Not yet.
It'll get there though

Ill add to that above list with a couple of my preferred new gameplay features:
- Gold is much more useful, finally, this is a big plus. having cash is an advantage now where in previous iterations of civ I wanted to max science to the point where I was near zero gold at all times.
- Combat & Ranged combat, I like the slowed wearing down of units, bombardment, and 'ganging up' works and is a good complement to 1UPT
- Early game barbarians fighting is great, they just keep popping up unless you go hunting for em