1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Fixing things that weren't broken

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Mad Hab, Nov 30, 2010.

  1. Dun Malg

    Dun Malg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    What gets me about that is that it's not even such a complicated concept that they'd need to look at Civ IV. It's a simple matter of cycling through units based on relative proximity (i.e. "who's the next closest unit") rather than blindly ratcheting down the list that's likely created in "oldest to newest" order. It's a problem that could be mitigated by a solution as simple as sorting the list by the unit's "longitude" on the map. This is a case of simply not considering the end user's experience.
     
  2. elthrasher

    elthrasher Revcaster

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    712
    I'd rather have no jumping around at all. There's already the flashing "unit needs orders" button. Let me click on that if I want to cycle. Otherwise, let me play my turn out as I please. The snap-to-unit is a real killer in simultaneous turns MP CivRev and is probably a problem for MP Civ V. It's annoying in SP too because I'm getting dragged to a unit that I may not want to move just yet.

    In a perfect world, unit cycling would be an option I could (and would) disable. Let me play my turn out and notify me if I missed anybody. That would be my preference.
     
  3. brades

    brades Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    I've logged well over a hundred games in civ 4. The only good thing about civ 5 is the 1upt and actual ranged attacks, to bad the AI is so abysmal that all you have to do is wait for the AI to suicide themselves against you. The game is honestly just boring where no choices you make have any large bearing on the outcome of the game. I'm now playing cities xl 2011, pretty sweet game and finally a 'sequel' to simcity 4.

    Problems:
    - No significant wonders
    - No religon
    - No variety in economy
    - Policies instead of civics lack variety
    - Food resources give no benefit other than being an extra slice of bread.
    - The AI does not try to win, I know they claim the AI is playing to win which is why they are less apt to trade with you, but that's total crap. How many times have you seen the AI with a huge stockpile of gold, or all the way through the tech tree and still hasn't beat a single spaceship component? I've basically stolen a few victories in games only because the AI did nothing to actually try and win.
     
  4. deanej

    deanej Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    New York State
    The AI picks a victory condition to go for and does not change it even if they can get another sooner (or even if it cannot be achieved anymore). Those AI weren't going for space.
     
  5. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    If you're talking about this -> that -> that -> other -> another, then yeah, it's probably about the same length. But if you're talking simple count of techs, then it's considerably shorter. If I recall my counts correctly, Civ4 had about 94 techs while Civ5 has about 73.

    Losing > 20% of your techs is *really* streamlined.
     
  6. brades

    brades Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    295
    Well if it's actually trying to win and it sees my pitiful little country putting together a spaceship in slow motion it should do one of a few things. It should either build it's own spaceship faster, use its huge goldpile to buy a diplomatic victory, or invade me assuming it was going for a conquest victory. I can remember in civ 4 when you'd have expionage on someone and you could tell when the AI switched to go for a cultural victory because all of a sudden the turns to their next tech would skyrocket. If/when you invaded them to stop this they would inevitably start researching again, changing it's strategy. Trying to win, should be trying to win in the context of the current game. Not picking a strategy to go for and sticking to it the entire game even when a lesser civilization is going to snatch victory from the AI.
     
  7. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    Keep in mind that end-of-turn cycling through enemy units in Civ5 is *vastly* different than in Civ4. Civ4, it hit each one and you saw what was going on (moving, fighting, whatever). In Civ5, they all are happening simultaneously. You may only see one or two of 8 fights going on.
     
  8. deanej

    deanej Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    New York State
    Keep in mind that the AI will also go for time victory. Also, just because it sucks at winning doesn't mean it doesn't play to win. It just sucks at it.
     
  9. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    An AI which is unable to go for a diplomatic win once the UN are built doesn't suck, it is unable.
     
  10. deanej

    deanej Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    New York State
  11. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Since "doesn't choose to" means "losing".
    Losing in my dictionary is the opposite of "winning".
     
  12. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    No unit cycling is an option (well, it's called "Auto Unit Cycle" and it can be disabled to get the effect you want). Have you not seen it in the options screen? It was added with one of the earlier patches.
     
  13. deanej

    deanej Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    New York State
    If you knew anything about computer programming, you would realize that this doesn't follow.

    The AI is nothing more than a series of if statements. If this happens, do that. It is impossible to develop something more sophisticated and capable of actual thought (at least until quantum computers get built).

    And yes, the civ5 AI does play to win. Just look at the civ4 AI. Prior to BtS, it might sometimes stumble into a space race victory if you let it. In BtS all they did was code it to sometimes go for cultural. They didn't play as opponents (IMO the better way, but that's neither here nor there).

    Don't confuse a sucky AI with one that isn't supposed to try to win.
     
  14. bryanw1995

    bryanw1995 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    don't blame this on sid, the only civ since 1 that he was involved with was Rev.
     
  15. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    By my count it was 88 for vanilla and 92 for bts.

    civ5 is 73.

    The justification that has been provided at times for the reduced number of techs is the separation of civics and religion from the tree.

    So while the number of techs is a bit lower, that is not really the biggest problem with the tree. Techs like Monotheism and Divine Right, for example, don't exactly have much point anymore.

    The absence of OR prereqs is the main factor that completely changes the flow of the tech tree.
     
  16. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    They mentioned in a podcast that the tech tree was something they had trouble with. Apparently, last game, Soren came up with the tech tree early and everybody was like "this is amazing". With the Civ5 tech tree, they came out with one version, realized that it was too narrow and linear, and then settled on this one as a better version.

    It's definitely got flaws that come from wanting to avoid dead end techs, filler techs, and wanting to connect all the techs with lines. It's not an easy thing. I don't think you necessarily need OR prereqs, although that is one way of doing it.
     
  17. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Brickhead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,181
    Location:
    Canada
    As I remember, however, there were similar problems with Civ 4. Could you not build Hollywood without knowledge of drama and Rock & Roll without music?
     
  18. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    Good point. Deadend techs (and letting techs not require lines to their prereqs) is another feature absent from the tree that would previously have helped it 'make sense' historically.
     
  19. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I've tried desperately in the past to rework the tree as it is to be relatively balanced and a bit more accurate. I did come up with this:

    Archer --> Trapping --> Currency
    Have Civil Service require Philosophy, Mathematics, and Currency.

    It resulted in some really awkward lines being drawn and moving currency to the classical age. It also made Civil Service slingshots harder. Logically, I would add Archery to The Wheel. The problem is that having roads is nice and delaying them isn't. I could bring up something about Composite Bows vs. other bows, but that's not really something I'd want to focus on (and isn't accurate for Chariots anyway).
     
  20. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    May I ask, in which way the above proves your point of view and invalidates mine?
    And this sequence of statements makes it really ridiculous. :lol::lol::lol:

    Sorry, but we're not discussing Civ4's AI.
    Any strength or weakness this AI would have had doesn't make Civ5's AI stronger or weaker.
    So what?
    Because Civ4 allegedly "didn't" play to be an opponent makes Civ5 do so?

    I am not confusing anything, I am looking at the game. Civ5, in this case.

    As soon as the UN is built (regardless of who did this), you have a limited number of turns after which an "election" is performed.
    Known parameters are: No other major civ will vote for you. Under no circumstances, never. You will get your own vote, plus the ones of allied city states and liberated cities. Point, period, end of list of parameters.

    This makes it quite easy to determine winning conditions:
    Get enough allies, even better, get former allies of your opponents as your allies now.
    As getting allies is a function of spending money (if not at war with you currently), it comes down to "collect money, spend it one turn prior to election".

    But the AI is uncapable of doing so.

    Very similar it is with domination victory. The AI will randomly leave some capitals under the reign of their original civs, although it could easily conquer them and retrieve the domination victory.

    Any attempt of going for cultural victory or spaceship I haven't observed yet since my games were over much earlier.

    So, the conclusion is quite obvious:
    The AI does not pick the available winning conditions, it does not adjust to obvious end of game conditions.
    It is not playing to win. It has been programmed to be some kind of obstacle, but nothing more.
     

Share This Page