First Impressions

[Blinn]

The general consensus seems to be that trade routes are too strong; but what do you guys think about the solution of just making negative health more punishing? If it gave you -75% growth for even being at -1 happiness like it does in BNW I think that would solve a lot of issues just by itself.

The current multiplayer metagame seems to revolve around just planting as many cities as possible, as fast as possible while rushing trade depots and trade routes in every single one because 10% culture and science penalty is negligible. The game seems to promote: negative health means nothing now, you can fix it later when it does matter. But if there was a growth penalty as well this would instantly discourage that strategy.

What do you guys think?

 

[manu-fan]

OK, here goes.

Not very positive over all. I've started and quit about 5 games because of frustration with it.

Where to start:

Exploring:

So much Miasma. So many canyons. It's hard to get around because of all that stuff. Finding a route to Alien Nests and stuff with some units is especially painful. I hate Miasma!!

City attacking:

I was a noob in my early games, attacking with some Rangers and Soldiers, and then finding that they all did about 5 damage to the city. OK, realized that I needed to get levels in an Affinity to get better units, but they were all shot down too easily by the city defence. Ah ha, I need Missile Rovers. They are the equivalent of Catapults and great at attacking cities. So, in my latest game, I attacked with 3 Missile Rovers, 2 Marines, 3 Gunners, a Gunship, and 1 Combat Rover. First turn, one of my Missile Rovers was taken out by the city, Rocket Battery and some aircraft. Then, I saw that they only are doing 7 or 8 damage to the city, while my Gunners are doing 14-15. WTH? And, to cap it all off, the Gunship is best, at 20-21 damage. LOL. After about 5 turns I actually take the city, but I lost nearly all the attacking force, losing at least one unit a turn (and this is only on the difficulty level above the lowest!).

Tech Tree:

How the heck do you know what it is a wonder or not, and why is there no wonder filter?

Healthiness:

How on earth do you keep your empire healthy? Even with 3 or 4 cities, I'm finding it really hard, even after building Pharmalabs, Clinics, and all the health buildings I can think of. Yikes.

Production Notification:

Why is there no notification of what you just built in a city?

Stations:

I was looking at some great real estate to plant a couple of outposts for my second and 3rd city. Then a station was plonked right in the middle of the area. Why can't we found a city closer than 4 hexes away, now that a station is only 1 hex and doesn't grow? Here's what happened also. I founded a 2nd city in the now best spot because of the station. But I then found out the station had been obliterated, and now the land I was planning on settling is all messed up because of my 2nd city. So frustrating.

That's about it. I will try and stick at my current game, now that I actually conquered a city, but I still don't know what I'm going to do about health, and still can't figure out any appropriate wonders to go for.

There are positives to the game. I like the quests, I like the virtues. I like the Unit Upgrades. I kind of like the way the Tech Tree works.

But, there are lots of negatives for me right now too.

 

[PhilBowles]

I love the whacky, yet 'science-sounding' quotes. I just got the Transcendental Equation! Is that like Quadrilateral Meditation?

I think the game should get a good deal of credit for the quotes; narrated by the relevant leaders or not they have a SMAC feel to them. My only quibble is that they've tried a bit too hard to make the quotes funny rather than scene-setting; sure, while some fall flat others are genuinely amusing (such as the Robotics one), but when you're going to hear the same quotes on every playthrough I'd rather they imparted a sense of depth to the setting - repeated jokes get old fast.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

SMAC feel? The quotes in SMAC were often quite intelligent even in the in game fiction ( when they weren't quoting a real world philosophers).

The quotes I've seen here were cringe worthy.

 

[PhilBowles]

SMAC feel? The quotes in SMAC were often quite intelligent even in the in game fiction ( when they weren't quoting a real world philosophers).

The quotes I've seen here were cringe worthy.

The ones I remember from AC were mostly cringeworthy, to be honest; the real-world quotes only highlighted their vacuous pretension by comparison. But they still added a sense of place and some semblance of character to the factions.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The ones I remember from AC were mostly cringeworthy, to be honest; the real-world quotes only highlighted their vacuous pretension by comparison. But they still added a sense of place and some semblance of character to the factions.

I liked AC as much as the next person, but apparently to some the game gets better and better the more time goes by.

 

[AriochIV]

As others have rightly pointed out, however, the game could use some improvement. Monochrome graphics tell you nothing about the value of an entity. Should be able to see at a glance 'Oh, this is good for an Affinity,' or 'This is good for Energy,' or whatever.

I agree that this seems like a missed opportunity. The monochrome icon style is slick and futuristic, but it doesn't do much to help the information overload when looking at the tech tree in particular. They did a nice thing with the build menu putting colored Health or Science indicators next to each item; having the icons themselves be color-coded as well, it seems to me, would have been useful.

So much Miasma. So many canyons. It's hard to get around because of all that stuff. Finding a route to Alien Nests and stuff with some units is especially painful. I hate Miasma!!

The "Terra" map seems to have very narrow snaky continents, which compounds the severity of obstacles. I suggest trying the "Protean" (~Pangea) map, which has a little more room to maneuver.

How the heck do you know what it is a wonder or not, and why is there no wonder filter?

Building icons have an octagonal border, and the Wonders have a circular one.

How on earth do you keep your empire healthy? Even with 3 or 4 cities, I'm finding it really hard, even after building Pharmalabs, Clinics, and all the health buildings I can think of. Yikes.

In the early-mid game before certain technologies and virtues become available, it's almost impossible to keep health positive, but you don't need to. The penalties even past -20 just aren't that severe.

 

[Sprenk]

Healthiness:

How on earth do you keep your empire healthy? Even with 3 or 4 cities, I'm finding it really hard, even after building Pharmalabs, Clinics, and all the health buildings I can think of. Yikes.

Production Notification:

Why is there no notification of what you just built in a city?

Stations:

I was looking at some great real estate to plant a couple of outposts for my second and 3rd city. Then a station was plonked right in the middle of the area. Why can't we found a city closer than 4 hexes away, now that a station is only 1 hex and doesn't grow? Here's what happened also. I founded a 2nd city in the now best spot because of the station. But I then found out the station had been obliterated, and now the land I was planning on settling is all messed up because of my 2nd city. So frustrating.

Health: Everyone is fighting this problem. The good news is that, compared to BNW, having health in the single-digit negatives isn't such a big deal. It's the new normal--a slight "tax" on early expansion.

Product Notification: You are absolutely right! That frustrates me, too.

Stations: I can help with this. You can either take out the station with military units (having a ranged unit take it down and a melee finish it off), or you can refuse to trade with it until it disappears. Only downside to taking it out is the hit to reputation if another faction has decided to trade with it. Downside to ignoring it is that it takes awhile--and another faction might decide to trade with it and thereby preserve it!

 

[AriochIV]

Only downside to taking it out is the hit to reputation if another faction has decided to trade with it.

Has anyone actually received a complaint from another faction or noticed a diplomatic modifier for destroying a station? There doesn't seem to be any way to tell who else is trading with a station, or to ask someone else to leave it alone when you're trading with it; I know they said in previews that there's a diplomatic hit for this, but I'm not sure it's actually in the game. Stations get squashed like bugs in the games I've played, and no one seems upset about it.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

I play SMAC every so often so its not nostalgia talking. The writing there is simply better. The game mechanics are better. The flavor is better. There's no other science fiction strategy game that has as much intellectual depth, which is not much of a claim in gaming I'll admit.
Its not going to win the Nobel prize but for a one man show (Reynolds apparently did most of it) its a fine piece of work. It does in fact get better with age when you take into account how much time has passed and how exactly 0 strategy games have come close to exploring so many different themes in a single game.

I would not have minded BE being better, but its simply not true. BE is a poor imitation in any segment one would care to compare the two games.

 

[PhilBowles]

I liked AC as much as the next person, but apparently to some the game gets better and better the more time goes by.

I suspect I didn't play it enough to get as immersed in its world as I'd perhaps need to to appreciate its charms. It was a good game, with some ideas it's a shame not to have seen since (such as elevation) and as over-the-top as it became late-game terraforming was fun. But once I'd played it a couple of times through I knew the story and it didn't hold much appeal beyond that, plus the unit workshop was just so much pointless micromanagement and horribly balanced to boot (what, there were options other than 'buggy chassis, best gun going?'). Mechanically it was to Civ II what BE is to Civ V, with some interesting tweaks but ultimately not sufficiently distinct to hold my interest.

When I started replaying it when BE was announced I finally picked up the expansion, but my interest started waning at the generic space-opera opening cinematic and only waned further with the squid aliens themselves and the more absurd human faction concepts such as the pirates, losing all the air of plausibility the main game - despite its Gaian planet, caricature factions, psychic mindworms and transcendence victory idea - worked with some success to generate.

Civ gains a lot from its historical setting, and with the best will in the world no sci-fi setting the designers come up with is going to compete with the level of depth history can provide. Plus, at the time, Master of Orion 2 was there for space fans, and appealed to me as a space-based 4x more than a Civ reskin in space.

 

[PhilBowles]

Has anyone actually received a complaint from another faction or noticed a diplomatic modifier for destroying a station? There doesn't seem to be any way to tell who else is trading with a station, or to ask someone else to leave it alone when you're trading with it; I know they said in previews that there's a diplomatic hit for this, but I'm not sure it's actually in the game. Stations get squashed like bugs in the games I've played, and no one seems upset about it.

Yes, I got a complaint for attacking a station another civ was trading with ... though only after said station was destroyed.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Yes, I got a complaint for attacking a station another civ was trading with ... though only after said station was destroyed.

Me too. I think it is odd that the AI only complains 20 turns after you've destroyed the station.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I play SMAC every so often so its not nostalgia talking. The writing there is simply better. The game mechanics are better. The flavor is better. There's no other science fiction strategy game that has as much intellectual depth, which is not much of a claim in gaming I'll admit.
Its not going to win the Nobel prize but for a one man show (Reynolds apparently did most of it) its a fine piece of work. It does in fact get better with age when you take into account how much time has passed and how exactly 0 strategy games have come close to exploring so many different themes in a single game.

I would not have minded BE being better, but its simply not true. BE is a poor imitation in any segment one would care to compare the two games.

I suspect I didn't play it enough to get as immersed in its world as I'd perhaps need to to appreciate its charms. It was a good game, with some ideas it's a shame not to have seen since (such as elevation) and as over-the-top as it became late-game terraforming was fun. But once I'd played it a couple of times through I knew the story and it didn't hold much appeal beyond that, plus the unit workshop was just so much pointless micromanagement and horribly balanced to boot (what, there were options other than 'buggy chassis, best gun going?'). Mechanically it was to Civ II what BE is to Civ V, with some interesting tweaks but ultimately not sufficiently distinct to hold my interest.

When I started replaying it when BE was announced I finally picked up the expansion, but my interest started waning at the generic space-opera opening cinematic and only waned further with the squid aliens themselves and the more absurd human faction concepts such as the pirates, losing all the air of plausibility the main game - despite its Gaian planet, caricature factions, psychic mindworms and transcendence victory idea - worked with some success to generate.

Civ gains a lot from its historical setting, and with the best will in the world no sci-fi setting the designers come up with is going to compete with the level of depth history can provide. Plus, at the time, Master of Orion 2 was there for space fans, and appealed to me as a space-based 4x more than a Civ reskin in space.

Don't get me wrong Drowsy, I liked the setting (and it's way better than BE is at least at this stage) and the general tone. But you have to admit that everything in it is a bit stereotyped, right? I just think people over-state how good it is. And like I said, I liked it.

But I have to disagree about the mechanics and the AI though, AC's about as unbalanced and exploitable as anything that's come out--even before we patch the obvious problems in this new game. There are serious issues with that game (supply crawlers?) people just choose to overlook that would never pass muster in today's uber-critical online community. And if people think the AI in this game is terrible, I don't understand what they'd say about AC's. And as Phil says, there were entire game features that to me just seemed pointless, and the expansion kind of ruined the lore.

But anyhow--first impressions--I have played one game not really knowing what i was doing or what was going on to start and just building or doing whatever seemed like a good idea at the time. Which is a problem for sure. If I could tell from that that the trade routes were too much I don't understand what the people making/testing the game were seeing. And yes, I am a bit disappointed that the flavor doesn't seem to be there. I don't know that that can be "fixed" but I'm sure we'll see everything else in the near future.

 

[need my speed]

There are affinity UUs instead. You can hardly call a feature that didn't exist until Civ IV a 'series staple'. For the inevitable Alpha Centauri comparisons: that didn't have unique units either.

False, Civilization III had unique units as well. That's most of the Civilization series, and as such, a 'series staple', I suppose.

 

[Vohbo]

Once civs start to complain about a station, they seem to repeat it every few turns.
Stations are a huge pain and an extremely stupid feature since the only proper thing to do with them is wipe them out.

 

[Cromagnus]

The Good:

1) More levers and dials

Civ 5 had IMHO too few ways to solve a specific problem that was in front of you. Need more happiness? There are one or two ways that may not work with the techs/civ/start you have. Need more culture? More gold? More tech? Same issue.

In CivBE, this problem does not exist. You can get *food* specialists, for crying out loud. You can plant Biowells anywere. You can get a 4-slot culture building. You can do quests to get health or science or culture or energy from virtually any existing building. Usually right after you first build it.

The end result of this is not all good. One the one hand, you're less screwed than in Civ5 if you take a wrong tech turn or don't have great city locations. Fixing happiness in Civ5 without good spots that had unique luxuries was almost impossible. So, that's great. I feel like the game is more flexible, and you can react/adapt to changing situations. And that's fun.

One the other hand, it feels more generic. Still, mostly a good thing.

2) The Victory Conditions are not "instant-win".

The AI is still woefully incompetent, but at least they have 10-20 turns to prevent your victory while you shuffle soldiers through the gate. They'll most likely fail, but at least they *try* to stop you. Or they have so far in my games. They send armies. They send navies. Which die horribly. But still. Usually in Civ5 the AI would just watch while you won.

3) Mantle

It runs smoother than Civ5 for me. With the exception of the tech web... That smells like a bug though.


The Bad:

1) Flavor

Maybe I haven't given it enough time, but I'm struggling to get immersed in the game world. I understand that this is most likely a result of Firxas going with a totally new IP. Maybe this will improve over time, or I'll get more accustomed to it and like it more. The civs feel generic. The victory conditions made more sense after playing, but still. Emancipation and the related affinity are not as well fleshed out as the other two. Some of the art is cool, but most (like miasma) is just a green on green blurry mess unless I zoom in too close.

2) The UI is awful

The UI is just bad. No need to explain this if you'd played it at all.

3) The Tech Web is unbalanced

Perhaps this is a symptom purely of the UI not being so great, but it feels.. off. Needs balancing. No surprises there.

4) Trade Routes

OMG Make it stop.



So, overall I kinda like it. I'll probably go back to Civ5 until the first balance patch though. I don't see the point in getting invested in an obviously imbalanced tech/virtue web.

 

[PhilBowles]

The Good:

1) More levers and dials

Civ 5 had IMHO too few ways to solve a specific problem that was in front of you. Need more happiness? There are one or two ways that may not work with the techs/civ/start you have. Need more culture? More gold? More tech? Same issue.

In CivBE, this problem does not exist. You can get *food* specialists, for crying out loud. You can plant Biowells anywere. You can get a 4-slot culture building. You can do quests to get health or science or culture or energy from virtually any existing building. Usually right after you first build it.

I'd say almost the reverse. Civ V, as it went on, added quite a variety of ways to obtain each of these, with avenues to achieve them through any of a combination of religion, buildings, specialists, policies, trade of several types, city-state alliances and good old-fashioned technologies. If one didn't work with your start, you could use another. That was actually one of the game's key advances over previous games (need happiness in Civ IV? Connect luxuries. Not enough? Get a religion. None going? Trade for some luxes. Oh, and by the way these aren't alternative options -you have to do all three to stay in the black. And to do so with every city, despite the fact that the solution is exactly the same combination of these features for every single one).

With BE you have extremely limited options for, in particular, health management - and a la Civ IV you need to use all of them rather than choosing the one or two that best suit your circumstances. Health management involves gaining positive health, and suppressing growth.

The former, for most of the game, is available exclusively through buildings. You can quite quickly rush biowells, but biowell health only works if you're working biowell tiles - and biowell tiles give you food that makes the population grow. So, gain a minor health boost at the expense of population growth that increases ill health: not the best trade-off ever conceived.

Which brings us to the latter - managing population growth. There are very few ways to do this. If you want internal trade, as you almost always do to maximise production, you get a huge food boost as well. So you can't restrict growth this way without hampering economic development. You can move to mostly non-food-producing tiles, but food is pretty much everywhere in the landscape and often good yield enhancements are linked to those improvements. You can turn citizens into specialists to prevent them generating more food, but again this comes at the cost of tile yield and it is only an option in the mid to late game.

 

[Becephalus]

Me too. I think it is odd that the AI only complains 20 turns after you've destroyed the station.

I destroyed one station on about turn 100 in one turn, and got complaints for the rest of the game from multiple civs. Eahc time I said I would stop.

 

[Becephalus]

The civs feel generic. T[/B]

OMG Make it stop.

That is because they are incredibly generic. Other than the character models they could be made in one afternoon. They are a color steam, one bonus setting and a list of city names.