G&K: A New Hope

[dowd001]

So been playing Civ since the original. Used to sneak out to the school computer lab and play civ with a friend back in early nineties. I am afraid to add up the time spent in my life on this game...

Anyway, went back to Civ IV BTS last week and noticed something I had forgotten since shifting to Civ V. Civ IV BTS was just a less structured game, in a good way. On the higher levels, there were no "required" wonders for a victory condition, and you could take multiple tech and building paths and still have a successful and fun game.

In Civ V, it seems like there is a way to play on the higher levels depending on the Leader, and you can only adjust around the edges if you want to be in a position to win the game. More of a formula you execute than a civilization you build.

For example, in Civ 4 BTS, you did not necessarily need to settle on a luxury. In Civ V, the only reason to create a city is to get that luxury or strategic resource. It just leads to a more formulaic game. As a result, the decision to expand or not in Civ V is largely a function solely of that luxury or strategic resource.

I really hope that G&K brings back that fluidity to the game. It was just much more fun that way.

And oh yeah, I totally forgot to put a military unit in my city and was destroyed by barbs as I looked for the city ranged shot button.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

In Civ V, it seems like there is a way to play on the higher levels depending on the Leader, and you can only adjust around the edges if you want to be in a position to win the game. More of a formula you execute than a civilization you build.

For example, in Civ 4 BTS, you did not necessarily need to settle on a luxury. In Civ V, the only reason to create a city is to get that luxury or strategic resource. It just leads to a more formulaic game. As a result, the decision to expand or not in Civ V is largely a function solely of that luxury or strategic resource.

G&K isn't fundementally altering the structure of the game. There is no reason to believe that they are making winning strategies less formulaic. In fact, by adding ingredients like religion and espionage, it makes the winning formula more complex. G&K is expanding the game, not changing the way that it plays.

 

[Haig]

Well I'd argue that Civ IV has the required/formulaic things too, like whipping all the time, different slingshots etc.

But yeah looking forward to G&K and everything it brings.

 

[dowd001]

I don't think you need to funtamentally alter the structure to alter the winning strategies and open it up.

Will give you an example.

Everytime I play a science strategy, I go Liberty for the GE and then snag a GE from the Hagia, get to Education and insta-build Porcelain Tower and Notre Dame. That strategy is just so much more powerful for every Civ, even for Arabia or another Civ that benefits from a different path in the tech tree.

If religion in the early stages is powerful enough to compensate for the double GE path above, you may be able to, say, choose to focus on religion instead of getting the free GE from Liberty. Go Tradition, if its changed to work with your religion, and basically have two routes to a successful science win. It depends on how they balance.

But the key is going to be to make some strategies in combination with others workable for victory scenarios, and, most importantly, variable based on the land and resources available. All of that depends on the bonuses that religion in combination with policies will result in.

Fact of the matter, today, that double GE strategy is right for every single deity science victory and that is just boring.

By rebalincing policies, religion, espionage, wonder benefits, etc., they can create combinations that work in some resource allocations and don't work in others.

 

[Calouste]

Reading the articles about high level play on BTS during that time, I seem to remember that a lot of players considered their game won or lost depending on whether they got the free tech that came with researching Liberalism first. Same of course with the Porcelain Tower in Civ5 (Firaxis: hint, giving a away a free tech during the Rennaissance to the first civ to do something doesn't make for varied gameplay)

Civ5 indeed makes the civs more roleplaying in that you have to play to the strength of your civ to be successfull, where in Civ4 traits has less impact. But I like the variety that that brings, whether you go for many city state alliances with the Greeks or cling to the mountains with the Inca or Natural Wonder hunting with the Spanish, etc etc, there are a lot of different ways to play Civ5.

 

[Calouste]

I don't think you need to funtamentally alter the structure to alter the winning strategies and open it up.

Will give you an example.

Everytime I play a science strategy, I go Liberty for the GE and then snag a GE from the Hagia, get to Education and insta-build Porcelain Tower and Notre Dame. That strategy is just so much more powerful for every Civ, even for Arabia or another Civ that benefits from a different path in the tech tree.

If religion in the early stages is powerful enough to compensate for the double GE path above, you may be able to, say, choose to focus on religion instead of getting the free GE from Liberty. Go Tradition, if its changed to work with your religion, and basically have two routes to a successful science win. It depends on how they balance.

But the key is going to be to make some strategies in combination with others workable for victory scenarios, and, most importantly, variable based on the land and resources available. All of that depends on the bonuses that religion in combination with policies will result in.

Fact of the matter, today, that double GE strategy is right for every single deity science victory and that is just boring.

By rebalincing policies, religion, espionage, wonder benefits, etc., they can create combinations that work in some resource allocations and don't work in others.

That double GE strategy is more or less dead, because Notre Dame is at Physics in G&K, and the Porcelain Tower is no longer at Education (although we don't know where it has gone).

 

[dowd001]

Glad to see that double GE strat die out.

So another example of how Civ IV was designed with more flexibility. Play the first 25 turns in Civ 4, and you realize quickly that the initial build order is highly dependent on which Civ you start with and what land you have. Not all of the Civs start with the same techs, so some have an incentive to go to a religion early and others to find copper (remember that?). That means that Scout-Monument-Worker (or Scout-worker-Monument) was not even possible for some civs. (Scouts required an early tech).

That simple change made the first 100 turns different on every game I tried in the past few weeks.

 

[leif erikson]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we need these threads that attempt to compare Civ 4 and Civ 5? They are different games with differing design philosophies. The designers of Civ 5 intentionally did not attempt to recreate Civ 4, they wanted to try some new things while attempting to make an enjoyable game.

I think we should all enjoy playing the version we like best without feeling like we need to knock the other versions.

 

[Buccaneer]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we need these threads that attempt to compare Civ 4 and Civ 5? They are different games with differing design philosophies. The designers of Civ 5 intentionally did not attempt to recreate Civ 4, they wanted to try some new things while attempting to make an enjoyable game.

I think we should all enjoy playing the version we like best without feeling like we need to knock the other versions.

or keep coming into Civ5 threads saying how the game sucks or how they can't accept the differences. There's going to be a lot more of that next week when their high expectations of G&K will cause yet another round of rantings when they realize that the expansion will play just like Civ5 vanilla, except with more variety.

 

[leif erikson]

Please do not answer these types of posts, simply report them and let us take care of it as best we can.

 

[Gucumatz]

The Empire Strikes Back :: And I am a proud Imperial Most of us can't wait for Gods and Kings and I honestly don't think this will settle posts like the OP though. I feel it will finally take a second expansion to settle people down like him that include all together new features (new systems of trade, disease warfare, something new and revolutionary, etc.)

 

[nokmirt]

I don't think you need to funtamentally alter the structure to alter the winning strategies and open it up.

Will give you an example.

Everytime I play a science strategy, I go Liberty for the GE and then snag a GE from the Hagia, get to Education and insta-build Porcelain Tower and Notre Dame. That strategy is just so much more powerful for every Civ, even for Arabia or another Civ that benefits from a different path in the tech tree.

If religion in the early stages is powerful enough to compensate for the double GE path above, you may be able to, say, choose to focus on religion instead of getting the free GE from Liberty. Go Tradition, if its changed to work with your religion, and basically have two routes to a successful science win. It depends on how they balance.

But the key is going to be to make some strategies in combination with others workable for victory scenarios, and, most importantly, variable based on the land and resources available. All of that depends on the bonuses that religion in combination with policies will result in.

Fact of the matter, today, that double GE strategy is right for every single deity science victory and that is just boring.

By rebalincing policies, religion, espionage, wonder benefits, etc., they can create combinations that work in some resource allocations and don't work in others.

In other words, GnK should bring variation back into play. You know longer will have to follow an exact certain strategy to complete your victory goal.

I hope it is the same with diplomacy. Right now the way I play there is no real diplomacy, it is better to simply ignore the AI civs. Trade with them, bribe them to DoW your enemies, sell OBs to civs not to close to you. Pretty much that is it. If they DoW you defend yourself or go destroy them. Other than that the interaction is very simplistic. It would be a nice change if diplomacy began to become more intriguing, interesting, and above all actually mean something.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we need these threads that attempt to compare Civ 4 and Civ 5? They are different games with differing design philosophies. The designers of Civ 5 intentionally did not attempt to recreate Civ 4, they wanted to try some new things while attempting to make an enjoyable game.

I think we should all enjoy playing the version we like best without feeling like we need to knock the other versions.

I think that there are good things about every version, but I don't want the same game every time. Everyone looks at things differently, especially game designers. New games should be created with a different outlook. There are things I like and dislike about CiIV and CiV. Still, they are both great games. CiV has come along way since release, it has been patched and balanced fairly decently. Now it is time for it to evolve to the next level. I have a feeling it can only get better. CiIV vanilla got better with warlords, and became truly excellent with BTS. Yes, the game still had problems and it was far from perfect. The important thing is that it was easy to mod and a lot of fun to play. CiV will get there it will take time with patching and balancing, but in the end it will be one of the best, just like BTS.

I love how people knock the games. I have been guilty of this on many occasions. Of course, that does not stop me from playing and never will.

 

[Veneke]

Anyway, went back to Civ IV BTS last week and noticed something I had forgotten since shifting to Civ V. Civ IV BTS was just a less structured game, in a good way. On the higher levels, there were no "required" wonders for a victory condition, and you could take multiple tech and building paths and still have a successful and fun game.

In Civ V, it seems like there is a way to play on the higher levels depending on the Leader, and you can only adjust around the edges if you want to be in a position to win the game. More of a formula you execute than a civilization you build.

For example, in Civ 4 BTS, you did not necessarily need to settle on a luxury. In Civ V, the only reason to create a city is to get that luxury or strategic resource. It just leads to a more formulaic game. As a result, the decision to expand or not in Civ V is largely a function solely of that luxury or strategic resource.

I really hope that G&K brings back that fluidity to the game. It was just much more fun that way.

And oh yeah, I totally forgot to put a military unit in my city and was destroyed by barbs as I looked for the city ranged shot button.

BTS had it's formulas, especially on the higher levels but I take your point.

Even in IV settling without a luxury or strategic resource was usually a substandard move (assuming equal terrain), it's roughly the same V only that now if you pass up a strat resource you're limiting the number of advanced units you can build. There's also the point that cities in V can utilize a substantially larger space than cities in IV, so there isn't as big a need to settle huge numbers of cities. The happiness cap also works against it harder than in IV so the opportunity cost is higher. Then again, ICS is still pretty valid in V.

 

[jjkrause84]

BTS had it's formulas, especially on the higher levels but I take your point.

Even in IV settling without a luxury or strategic resource was usually a substandard move (assuming equal terrain), it's roughly the same V only that now if you pass up a strat resource you're limiting the number of advanced units you can build. There's also the point that cities in V can utilize a substantially larger space than cities in IV, so there isn't as big a need to settle huge numbers of cities. The happiness cap also works against it harder than in IV so the opportunity cost is higher. Then again, ICS is still pretty valid in V.

I disagree. In Civ 4 you might often found a city with nothing but good food resources...no luxuries or strategic resources. These food citiies usually didn't have great production, but they were still absolutely worth building. The fact that food resources is the LAST thing you look at in Civ 5 feels horribly wrong, since it should really be the FIRST thing you look for (humans need food!).

Like the OP, I hope that Civ 5 continues to become more 'open ended'. Right now, as much as I am enjoying Civ 5, it feels like we are fiven multiple choice answers: culture, science, or military...A, B, or C. Civ 4 felt more like an essay: there were many more 'right' answers, and all were shades of grey (even though military expansion was still hopelessly overpowered in Civ 4). The more shades of grey Civ 5 allows, the longer the player can delay making the decision about how to win the game, the better. I don't want to start out thinking, 'I'm gonna play a cultural game!'......I want to build an empire and find my strengths as I go along, then FOLLOW them (hopefully to victory).

Civ 4, I should say, was only NOMINALLY better at this. It was still a game where one option (military conquest) was always the best option. At least the choices and option did not feel so patently stark. Civ 5 suffers horribly from a tech tree that runs along set 'army, navy, culture, science' rails in many ways. In Civ 4 you didn't have such a strogn continuity, which made discovery feel a bit more organic (to my mind).

 

[kungming2]

Well I'd argue that Civ IV has the required/formulaic things too, like whipping all the time, different slingshots etc.

Totally forgot that Civ IV had whipping! Ah those memories of still running slavery in 2045 CE...

 

[MkLh]

BTS had it's formulas, especially on the higher levels but I take your point.

Even in IV settling without a luxury or strategic resource was usually a substandard move (assuming equal terrain),

In IV it was always a good move to settle to a food rich spot.

I agree with many posts that the city placement probably won't change much in G&K. Global Happiness and resource trading are still there and because of that, resources are much more valuable than e.g. food or production.

What we can realistically expect from G&K is improving failure diplomacy of vanilla. I don't think the building part of the game will change much, but that wasn't the biggest problem after all.

 

[Depravo]

After verging on 20 years of PC strategy gaming I've finally learned never to get too worked about any release. Ever.