Firaxis; who do you actually make a Civilization games for?

[beetle]

All good and strong points Lindsay, but a couple quibbles...

If there's anything that Firaxis do need to be told, it's that there's no way am I paying full price for Civ 6.

You and I may hold to that, but the pattern is that they will get plenty of folks willing to pay full MSRP for beta quality. The only course of action I can see for myself is to sit on my wallet and vent to this forum. Do you have other ideas? OTOH, by waiting, I do feel I got my money’s worth. But to be clear, I am as frustrated with Firaxis as anyone.

So people who want Civ V to match Civ IV's standard of pathfinding and tactical acumen...

The V pathfinding boggles me! Did we not once upon a time have an iteration with waypoints and patrol routes? Or am I wishing so hard that I imagining that?

Of the previous tactical acumen I remain skeptical -- I think SOD masked the previous failings -- and V is no worse than IV. Multiplayer and moding support has obviously degraded. All the more infuriating because of advertisements to the contrary!

 

[lindsay40k]

Do you have other ideas?

Erm...fully automated luxury communism?

I do feel I got my money’s worth.

Oh, I absolutely agree. The £15 I spent on Civ V Complete was money well spent. Definitely a fair price for the product. I've already got twenty quid set aside for when Civ 6 is on the third patch of the second expansion.

I watched in bewilderment as friends bought Civ V Vanilla, complained that it was boring, and spent more than that on DLC alone. To return to OP, it's that sort of throw-good-money-after-bad consumer that Civ is made for now.

The V pathfinding boggles me! Did we not once upon a time have an iteration with waypoints and patrol routes? Or am I wishing so hard that I imagining that?

Units were definitely better at navigating new bottlenecks. Which were not, it is important to note, inherently created by the dozen each turn by 1upt traffic jams. Rally points could be set for newly deployed units. Naval trade routes, whilst abstracted, could be protected from mischievous units by a warship on Sentry or Naval Patrol orders.

Of the previous tactical acumen I remain skeptical -- I think SOD masked the previous failings -- and V is no worse than IV.

SOD was certainly easier for an AI to wield effectively. However, the advent of 1upt means that there's a higher standard of competence needed for the many 'glass cannon' units to be anything other than easy kills. Doubly so when naval deployment does not require a fleet, and units will drunkenly wander into lakes overlooked by crossbows.

 

[danaphanous]

Doubly so when naval deployment does not require a fleet, and units will drunkenly wander into lakes overlooked by crossbows.

I loved this image...so apt!

I think the pathfinding in civ V should've had waypoints all along. there needs to be a key you can press to mark a point and then keep dragging. It would solve so many problems and allow finer control over motion. As it is I frequently just move them one turn at a time because pathfinding is so likely to fail or clog somewhere and waste a units turn during a war.

the main reason the AI fails at so many simple things in Civ V is they overbuild their units and then use default pathfinding algorithms IN ORDER. they aren't thinking ahead just pathfinding for each unit one after the other. I don't even think there is a preference for picking certain units first, they have some predetermined order. I figured this out trapping prophets and watching which ones moved when I opened certain gaps. Obviously in a carpet of units this means effectively half of them have problems moving and do silly things like pathfinding through a lake next to a city. To improve the system the AI needs to dynamically choose which units to move first like humans do and choose to wait with certain units rather then move them into vulnerable positions during war. A simple way they could've accomplished this would have been to wait a unit that has no simple moves to the target. Paths could be rated based on how roundabout they appear. If the amount of detouring is greater then skipping a turn they skip their turn. If units near them still have moves they wait intsead of skipping and are evaluated later. I figure they didn't to cut down on in-between turn times on SP as the AI build massive militaries but a simple way to improve it could be to move units closest to the target first and move out in a radius at least. And the units should choose to skip rather than embark so often. And obviously they should finally fix that not being able to fire after moving bug. The only excuse I can think of for that is laziness. It's more complicated to program an algorithm to decide to shoot after every move rather then running one pathfinding code once but that is precisely why ranged units need to be able to save their attacks and reevaluate if they see a target in range, canceling their last move to instead fire.

 

[beetle]

I watched in bewilderment as friends bought Civ V Vanilla, complained that it was boring, and spent more than that on DLC alone. To return to OP, it's that sort of throw-good-money-after-bad consumer that Civ is made for now.

It is amazing, and not in a good way. I don’t think IV had the DLC, but pattern of good-money-after-bad was set with III, then continued with IV and V. I don’t expect Firaxis to give up what is a good deal for them.

Also, thanks for the reminder about sentry and rally points. Those two features alone would much improve V path finding.

 

[lindsay40k]

the main reason the AI fails at so many simple things in Civ V is they overbuild their units and then use default pathfinding algorithms IN ORDER.

Whereas the human has to spend every turn babysitting a conga line of ships, meandering along the shoreline, with the one at the back demanding attention every. single. turn. as Firaxis are too busy making another space spin-off that'll get played for half an hour to bother making a 'go around the obstacle' algorithm.

To return again to the OP: Civ is made for people who have huge reserves of time and patience, or who like late conquest being there but have no interest in the dull, tedious, frustrating process involved in actually trying it.

 

[darko82]

As much as I agree with Soren Johnson,

https://youtu.be/h65FXaJHbhE?t=2362

I think that oversimplying some game mechanics is not always a good idea. Though, I am aware that it depends on the type of player, I prefer complex strategy games. It seems that complexity may not be attractive to many people; esp. potential new players, and a lot more difficult to implement it with the rest of the features; thus that is probably the reason why they want to avoid it. Generally, it depends on the feature; how much gamey it is; whether it is simple or complex. Complexity might not be that gamey or pleasant to play with for some people.

BTW, 25th anneversary is a good occasion to release Civ VI.