Expansion Packs: Not What They Used to Be *Opinion Thread

[ButSam]

Could not agree more with Thormodr, exceptional points all around with your posts. I started typing up a reply but realized it would pretty much amount to "ditto, Thormodr" repeated over and over

 

[Thormodr]

Could not agree more with Thormodr, exceptional points all around with your posts. I started typing up a reply but realized it would pretty much amount to "ditto, Thormodr" repeated over and over

Thanks for the compliment. There are a lot of us that think the same way and all want the same thing. A deep, enriching, meaningful game with a solid expansions.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem contemparary enough.

 

[Peng Qi]

Thanks for the compliment. There are a lot of us that think the same way and all want the same thing. A deep, enriching, meaningful game with a solid expansions.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem contemparary enough.

No, you want a builder game. There's tons of depth and meaning in CiV, it's just more focused on combat. The builder aspect is still there, it's just not all about what I would call obsessive micro-management like cIV was. Honestly, I can't think of a single thing from IV I'd want back. Almost every mechanic in IV was so catastrophically flawed that they could not be fixed; that or the designers actually thought that having siege units do more damage to units not in combat than units with which they were in combat was desirable, or that having almost everyone who doesn't share a religion with you exist only as a possible war threat or target was a good thing, or that terrain being almost entirely meaningless to combat was a plus, or that having almost no options regarding which civics to use well into the late game was fun, or that wonders costing ridiculously large numbers of hammers that are all basically lost if someone else finishes the wonder first setting you back dozens of turns was fun, or that colonial empires being utterly pointless and only a drain on money was an intended side-effect of the maintenance mechanic.

I could go on like this, but I think you get the idea.

 

[logintime]

No, you want a builder game. There's tons of depth and meaning in CiV, it's just more focused on combat. The builder aspect is still there, it's just not all about what I would call obsessive micro-management like cIV was. Honestly, I can't think of a single thing from IV I'd want back. Almost every mechanic in IV was so catastrophically flawed that they could not be fixed; that or the designers actually thought that having siege units do more damage to units not in combat than units with which they were in combat was desirable, or that having almost everyone who doesn't share a religion with you exist only as a possible war threat or target was a good thing, or that terrain being almost entirely meaningless to combat was a plus, or that having almost no options regarding which civics to use well into the late game was fun, or that wonders costing ridiculously large numbers of hammers that are all basically lost if someone else finishes the wonder first setting you back dozens of turns was fun, or that colonial empires being utterly pointless and only a drain on money was an intended side-effect of the maintenance mechanic.

I could go on like this, but I think you get the idea.

I feel as though we may have played entirely separate games. I recall terrain being very valuable, and plenty of civic options in the modern era (as opposed to the current game, which gives no option to switch policies). Losing hammers from wonders but gaining gold in compensation exists in both Civ4 and Civ5, so I don't know why you brought that one in. And I play constantly with overseas empires, which are not even remotely a drain on your economy if you use the right civics, use a fair amount of specialists, or just cottage plenty of land. There were always many options to deal with maintenance and it provided a check to uncontrolled growth, something Civ5 has long needed. The one thing I will give you is that siege weapons were too powerful. Unfortunately, that is still the case with Civ5, though for different reasons.

Really though, if I wanted to play a combat game with a civilization-theme, I'd load up the original Rise of Nations and play that instead. The Civ series was always about more than warfare, but every other aspect of Civ5 (building, science, culture, diplomacy, etc) seems deeply lacking. This game just doesn't present that many enjoyable ways to play.

 

[MkLh]

that or the designers actually thought that having siege units do more damage to units not in combat than units with which they were in combat was desirable

Was this really a case? Even if it was, I don't think it was a massive problem.

, or that having almost everyone who doesn't share a religion with you exist only as a possible war threat or target was a good thing

I don't think it was quite so. Even civs who didn't share a religion, could be useful trade or war partners etc. And of course, free religion changed everything.

I think it's more correct to say that in V every AI civ pretty much exist only as a possible war threat or target.

, or that terrain being almost entirely meaningless to combat was a plus

There were terrain dependent defense bonuses and movement costs just as in V.

, or that having almost no options regarding which civics to use well into the late game was fun

In V, there are almost no options in early game either (freedom, honor and piety are no-brainers in pretty much every game).

, or that wonders costing ridiculously large numbers of hammers that are all basically lost if someone else finishes the wonder first setting you back dozens of turns was fun,

I don't really understand this. In V, wonders are just as expensive and bonuses are smaller (in IV industrial was +50% and stone/marble +100% - there isn't anything like that in V). You can lose a wonder in V too, and you won't get back anything but a small amount of gold. Besides, wonders are generally much weaker in V.

or that colonial empires being utterly pointless and only a drain on money was an intended side-effect of the maintenance mechanic.

Colonies were useless. You just didn't use them and that's it. There is nothing like colonies in V (you can't found a city and turn it to a puppet), so nothing has changed here. Vassal states on the other hand were quite useful like puppet cities in V.

 

[Thormodr]

No, you want a builder game. There's tons of depth and meaning in CiV, it's just more focused on combat. The builder aspect is still there, it's just not all about what I would call obsessive micro-management like cIV was. Honestly, I can't think of a single thing from IV I'd want back. Almost every mechanic in IV was so catastrophically flawed that they could not be fixed; that or the designers actually thought that having siege units do more damage to units not in combat than units with which they were in combat was desirable, or that having almost everyone who doesn't share a religion with you exist only as a possible war threat or target was a good thing, or that terrain being almost entirely meaningless to combat was a plus, or that having almost no options regarding which civics to use well into the late game was fun, or that wonders costing ridiculously large numbers of hammers that are all basically lost if someone else finishes the wonder first setting you back dozens of turns was fun, or that colonial empires being utterly pointless and only a drain on money was an intended side-effect of the maintenance mechanic.

I could go on like this, but I think you get the idea.

Actually, I'd like a game that made a variety of strategies fun, viable and interesting. You could be a warmonger in cIV, you could be a builder, you could run specialists, you could thieve your way to victory, you could try to culturally take over everyone, etc.

The sheer variety of ways to play was very fun. I am a builder at heart but I like a game that gives you multiple roads to victory that all look viable.

With Civilization 5, warmonging is by far the best strategy. Not that it's very satisfying with a moronic combat AI. Science and Culture are pretty similar. Just choose the purple or blue spaceship. Boring doesn't begin to describe those. Economic victory/Diplomatic victory with the city vending machines is horrifically dull. Not to mention the playing to win AI being psychotic with their diplomacy.

Roleplaying in Civilization 5 sucks and the game mechanics conspire to make the game unfun. They've got a heck of a lot of work to do.

Anyway, as a guess, I'll bet you loved Civ III. Am I right?

 

[ButSam]

Thanks for the compliment. There are a lot of us that think the same way and all want the same thing. A deep, enriching, meaningful game with a solid expansions.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem contemparary enough.

Yeah; I really miss meaningful expansions. I really wish we had a BtS-like expansion for CiV. It's about time we put spies back in the game! (One can argue the espionage points system...may be able to go back to gold-based now that gold is more abundant...but excluding spies completely is a huge oversight that to me shows the game was rushed, among other indicators as well.) Spies were a great way to target a leader without going to war with them. I still remember one of my most exciting cIV games was where I sabatoged a rival's spaceship part and launched my own a couple of turns later, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat

 

[Peng Qi]

plenty of civic options in the modern era (as opposed to the current game, which gives no option to switch policies)

But only in the modern era. You're pretty much stuck with one or at most two civics in each category until the Industrial Era in IV.

And I play constantly with overseas empires, which are not even remotely a drain on your economy if you use the right civics, use a fair amount of specialists, or just cottage plenty of land.

I found that until colonies were specifically addressed by BTS, they were completely worthless. Even then, it was often a better use of resources to just go conquer your neighbors instead.

I don't really understand this. In V, wonders are just as expensive and bonuses are smaller (in IV industrial was +50% and stone/marble +100% - there isn't anything like that in V). You can lose a wonder in V too, and you won't get back anything but a small amount of gold. Besides, wonders are generally much weaker in V.

I may be mistaken, but I feel like wonders cost less as a percentage of similar normal improvement costs in V than they did as a percentage in IV.

Colonies were useless. You just didn't use them and that's it. There is nothing like colonies in V (you can't found a city and turn it to a puppet), so nothing has changed here. Vassal states on the other hand were quite useful like puppet cities in V.

But if you do have an overseas city in V, it isn't de-facto crippled by corruption costs. But you're right about one thing, I do wish the game still had vassals, so that is one thing I would take from IV if I could have it back.

Science and Culture are pretty similar. Just choose the purple or blue spaceship. Boring doesn't begin to describe those. Economic victory/Diplomatic victory with the city vending machines is horrifically dull. Not to mention the playing to win AI being psychotic with their diplomacy.

I guess I'm just not sure how culture or science victory is any more boring than it was in IV. Diplo victory is certainly a lot less satisfying in V, I'll grant, since it doesn't require the same political dance as it did in IV; just loads of money.

Roleplaying in Civilization 5 sucks and the game mechanics conspire to make the game unfun. They've got a heck of a lot of work to do.

There is no roleplaying in V, nor is it an intended design element. It would be nice if there were a roleplaying mode where the AI didn't try as hard to shut down the human player, but complaining that the roleplaying isn't good in Civ V is like complaining that the first person shooter part of it isn't good; of course it isn't good, because it isn't there at all.

Anyway, as a guess, I'll bet you loved Civ III. Am I right?

Nope. Thought it was terrible.

 

[Thormodr]

But only in the modern era. You're pretty much stuck with one or at most two civics in each category until the Industrial Era in IV.
I found that until colonies were specifically addressed by BTS, they were completely worthless. Even then, it was often a better use of resources to just go conquer your neighbors instead.
I may be mistaken, but I feel like wonders cost less as a percentage of similar normal improvement costs in V than they did as a percentage in IV.
But if you do have an overseas city in V, it isn't de-facto crippled by corruption costs. But you're right about one thing, I do wish the game still had vassals, so that is one thing I would take from IV if I could have it back.
I guess I'm just not sure how culture or science victory is any more boring than it was in IV. Diplo victory is certainly a lot less satisfying in V, I'll grant, since it doesn't require the same political dance as it did in IV; just loads of money.
There is no roleplaying in V, nor is it an intended design element. It would be nice if there were a roleplaying mode where the AI didn't try as hard to shut down the human player, but complaining that the roleplaying isn't good in Civ V is like complaining that the first person shooter part of it isn't good; of course it isn't good, because it isn't there at all.
Nope. Thought it was terrible.

Hmmm...surprising. I've found Civ III to be the most similar to Civilization 5 in a lot of ways. Civ III at least as given up the title of worst Civ game now. (Besides Civ Rev of course.)

Spot on about there being no roleplaying in Civilization 5. Could explain the poor quality of AARs that have been done. It's not the fault of the writers of course. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken <expletive deleted> after all.

There is a numbing sameness about Civilization 5 which makes the game dull and uninteresting. Replayability is abysmal (worst of the series by far) and it seems extremely unlikely that an expansion pack with be forthcoming to deal with the issue.
I guess I'll have to hold out hope that they'll stick to their promise about releasing the source code.

 

[Peng Qi]

Hmmm...surprising. I've found Civ III to be the most similar to Civilization 5 in a lot of ways. Civ III at least as given up the title of worst Civ game now. (Besides Civ Rev of course.)

Spot on about there being no roleplaying in Civilization 5. Could explain the poor quality of AARs that have been done. It's not the fault of the writers of course. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken <expletive deleted> after all.

There is a numbing sameness about Civilization 5 which makes the game dull and uninteresting. Replayability is abysmal (worst of the series by far) and it seems extremely unlikely that an expansion pack with be forthcoming to deal with the issue.
I guess I'll have to hold out hope that they'll stick to their promise about releasing the source code.

Even if you feel it's unlikely that CiV will be fixed by the developers, it's quite likely that tools for modding the AI will eventually come out and therefore we'll see a roleplaying mod. As satisfied as I am with the core game of CiV in general, I do feel like a roleplaying mode or mod would give the game a lot more replay value.

 

[Thormodr]

Even if you feel it's unlikely that CiV will be fixed by the developers, it's quite likely that tools for modding the AI will eventually come out and therefore we'll see a roleplaying mod. As satisfied as I am with the core game of CiV in general, I do feel like a roleplaying mode or mod would give the game a lot more replay value.

It certainly couldn't hurt. Hopefully we'll see the source code within the next year.

 

[Raneman]

I don't want new civs, I want new game mechanics. So, I don't really like this DLC. When are we going to see radical new game mechanics? When can I once again play with corporations and the like?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Corporations sucked. Seriously, they were poorly implemented. New traits were handled well. New Civs were. Vassals would be if you weren't always undercut and someone else took them. But corps were a bad addition.

I'm not disputing your point, mind you, I just wanted to point out that new content simply because they're new content isn't a good thing. And corporations sucked.

 

[deanej]

I wouldn't say they sucked (Mining Inc and the food ones are REALLY awesome in the late game), but they did feel like they were merely tacked onto the game.