GamersGlobal Dennis Shirk interview

Optional

Deity
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
2,935
Location
It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
I saw a link to this interview in another thread, but the whole article was new to me:
http://www.gamersglobal.de/interview/mehr-tiefgang-durch-religionen. I'm assuming this is new to others as well. I'm trying to make translations for this type of interview, so English speakers don't have to do with the cripple google translations. I did only get halfway or so, but this is the first bit, I'll try finish it tomorrow:
GamersGlobal (GG): The saying goes; never talk about tax and religion, but with the new expansion Gods and Kings you're doing just that. Did you have a heated discussion about this internally?
Dennis shirk (DS): No, it was really painless. We would certainly have discussed this longer if the intention would have been to portray the existing world religions in the game. Then it could have come to situations in the game who nobody at Firaxis would have wanted to see on YouTube...
GG: ...or on the right-wing channel Fox News.
DS: Exactly. Then it would have been like we are indoctrinating the youth with this or that religion. So instead of this we are giving you all freedom; you can name your religion anything you want, and in the 5 or 6 'content slots' you can put any combination of beliefs.
This brings a lot more depth in the game. Who before relied on standard strategies, can forget about this with the add-on. Now you have 12 civilizations with 6 religions per game. On small maps this is still 4 civilizations with 2 religions. And this also has its effect on the surrounding civilizations. Take the faith 'Justified War'; when this spreads to one of your neighbours, your units will fight 30% more effectively when they are near the towns of these neighbours.
GG: In Civ 5 and also in Gods & Kings we will constantly meet other leaders. Can we in Gods & Kings also meet our God, who will perhaps speak to us through some natural phenomenon, and will praise and reward us because we have spread his word to others?
DS: No, it won't go as far as that. Great prophets are for us the biggest thing we touch. Perhaps also because it has been our intention to balance religion in a way that it plays its biggest role in the early and especially middle game. During the Renaissance the influence of religion will start to dwindle, more or less like it did in real life. Also the things you can buy with faith are becoming ever more expensive, until you can hardly afford them anymore in the industrial age. Then the system of espionage begins to unfold.

GG: The changes to the City State system sound interesting. Can you disclose a bit more about their quests?
DS: Next to the already mentioned ones, like 'kill x barbarians' or global quests like 'build the most wonders in y turns' there is the addition of a quest type where you have to retrieve a tribute payment from another City State. If you come with an army that is strong enough this can work for you and you'll get the gold and perhaps even a few workers.
But behind your back the threatened City State can complain about you to another player and plee for their help against you.
As I said, this is not the whole article, but I need some sleep now.

The rest:
GG: Keyword espionage. Aren't we getting almost too much information from our spies now, so we don't have to find things out for ourselves anymore?
DS: We are limiting that through the number of spies allowed. You'll get one in the renaissance, one in the industrial age and one in the modern age. With a national wonder, the National Secret Intelligence, you can get a fourth. But it can happen that your spies are informing you about technological achievements that are already long known by you, because your own research is much further. Your opponents or friends of them can discover your spy and come to complain about you - or they can simply take this spy out. And then you haven't got this spy available for some time. Or someone builds the Great Firewall, which prevents all technology theft for several rounds. We don't want to make this too complicated though, because that would distract from the actual game.
At the same time we've addressed some loopholes with research agreements which allowed the players trickery. You must now be good friends with a civilization to do research together.
Research agreements are becoming something special and valuable again, but also a target for a third party spy.
GG: When vikings or pirates storm ashore to plunder a city this will look authentic. But a World War I battle ship? Haven't sailors raided cities for completely different reasons?
DS: To some degree you have to leave reality out of this (grins). In this case the game wins through this new game mechanic. Imagine a continent surrounded by water where the inhabitants are protecting themselves from invasions through shore batteries. In Civ 5 you could hardly do anything against this. But now a squadron of destroyers can put the heat on a defending town - the defender has a lot more to worrie about and needs to be more careful.
And with the larger health bars battles will be a lot more intense than before.
GG: In any case thanks for the conversation and lots of success with finishing this.
 
'Kustenbatterien' Is this the return of coastal fortress ?

I was thinking about this term as well... :D

I guess it just means artillery that is placed on the coast. "Batterie" is a mitlitary term for an artillery combat unit.

In Civ V Vanilla it was enough to place your artillery units on the coast line to prevent an invasion. With the new "melee navy" this won't be possible anymore. Now you need to defend your coast a little bit more carefully. Artillery at the coast is not sufficient, when ships can attack your cities ;)
 
Yeah, keep in mind he's talking about what it was like before. He said before naval units were allowed to capture a city, it would be very difficult for an invading army to stand up to "Küstenbatterien." Doesn't rule it out, but that's the most conservative answer. He does seem to confirm that Destroyers can take cities, though.

Even if he's willing to bow to gameplay, I think you can justify even modern units. Cities don't normally fall by virtue of physical occupation of every square inch. It's possible for a vessel to enter a harbor and bring about a city's surrender that way. In that sense, this isn't all that unrealistic.
 
Yep, so people who thought melee naval combat would disappear mid-game will be wrong. Sounds like there will be melee and range naval units throughout the game, which I am fine with. Historically it may not be perfectly accurate, but for gameplay it makes sense. I'm not a fan of combat changing in eras, so if the game is going the melee/range route, it should be consistent.
 
retrieve a tribute payment from another City State. If you come with an army that is strong enough this can work for you and you'll get the gold and perhaps even a few workers.
But behind your back the threatened City State can complain about you to another player and plee for their help against you.

I like the idea of this quest. Not only gaining favor with the CS, but free workers as well. It sounds like the free workers and gold could be what was meant by "keeping military units near a CS can earn swag" from one of the earlier articles.

Plus it hints at CS's giving a quest to Civs for helping them remove the bullying Civ's units from their lands. So instead of just , go kill this other CS for us, it's go kill this other Civ for us.
 
In the article it also mentions Research Agreements only available between 'good friends', which makes the RA itself 'something special' but also easy prey for spies. Sounds fun.

Edit: Apologies, just saw the 'Changes to RAs?' thread, this obviously belongs there.
 
Google Translation:

Among the many innovations that Civilization 5: Gods and Kings brings with it, you could convince you been in our In-Test products. After we presented the extension recently in San Francisco for half an hour, we have Dennis Shirk, Associate Producer at Firaxis development studio caught and questioned, among other new religions and the revised spies. In case you're wondering about the lack of questions about AI: We believe with all my faith in the competence of Firaxis, Civilization 5 with only what we can experience and see for yourself, and no designer promise.

GamersGlobal: There is a saying: never talk about taxes and religion - with the new extension of Gods and Kings Were you doing just that but it internally heated discussions about it?

Dennis Shirk: Actually, no, that was pretty painless. We would certainly have discussed it more if it had been the goal to map the existing world religions in the game. Then it would have to be some situations in the game that no one would want to look at Firaxis on YouTube ...

Dennis Shirk: Exactly, it would mean we indoctrinate the youth with this or that religion. So instead, we give you complete freedom: you can call your religion as you want, and you can put it in the five to six "content slot" any combination of beliefs. This really is a lot more depth to the game: If you previously relied on standard strategies can forget the addon. For now, you have twelve civilizations, religions, with six per game. On small cards that are then still four civilizations, two religions. And this also has an impact on the surrounding civilizations. Take the faith "Just War". If the spread to one of your neighbors, your fighting units 30 percent more effective if they are located near the cities of the neighbors.

GamersGlobal: In Civilization 5 and also in Gods and Kings, we repeatedly encounter the other leaders. Can we meet in Gods & Kings and our God, who perhaps speaks of a natural phenomenon to us and praised and rewarded, because the rest of us have about him?

Dennis Shirk: No, it is not omnipotent. Great prophet are with us the greatest feeling. Maybe because we the religious system in the beginning and then have the most balanced middle of a game. During the Renaissance, the influence of religion begins to wane, however, almost as in the real world. Also, the things that you can buy with points of faith, more and more expensive - up until you yourselves in the industrial age can hardly afford. This then begins the spy system During the Renaissance, the influence of religion begins to wane

GamersGlobal: The changes to the city-state sound promising. Can you tell us more about their quests?

Dennis Shirk: In addition to the aforementioned types, such as "kill x BarbareAnzeigen "or global quests like "Build the most wonder of the world moves in the Y 'There is a quest in the addon-type where you have to recover a tribute to another city-state. Puts her in with an army that is strong enough, can it work and you get the gold, and maybe even a few workers. But behind your back can the city-state which have intimidated her, complaining about it at another player and ask him for help against you.

GamersGlobal: Keyword Espionage: Do we not now almost too much information from our spies, without that we would have to do something?

Dennis Shirk: The We limit the number of spies. You get one in the Renaissance, one in the industrial age and into the present. Nations with a miracle, the National Intelligence Agency, you can still get a fourth. But it can happen that you send your spies technological achievements that are old hat to you for a long time, because your We have loopholes such as the research agreement stuffed Your opponents or allies can uncover your spies and then come to you and complain about it - or they simply bring him around the corner. And then you this spy is missing for some time. Or someone uses the miracle Great Firewall, all the technology for a few laps in derogation of theft. We want it all but not artificially complicated, because it distracts from the actual game. We have packed the same number of loopholes such as the research agreement, which allowed the players trickery. You must now be good friends with civilization, with which you want to do research together. Thus, these research agreements back into something special, something of value - and to a found food for the spy a third party.

GamersGlobal: If Vikings or pirates stormed ashore to plunder a city that appears authentic. But a war ship from World War II? The sailors have a city of its time but rushed for entirely different reasons ...

Dennis Shirk: To some degree you have to let the reality of something out of it. (Smiles) In this case, wins the game through this new mechanism. Imagine a continent before, which is surrounded by water and protect its citizens against invasion by shore batteries. In Civilization 5, you could hardly do anything about it. But now, a destroyer squadron to come near the coast and defending a country town on einheizen - because the defender must be considerably more careful and on guard. And with the increased health reserves are now running from battles much more exciting than before.

Global Gamers: We are excited. In any case, thank you for your time and good luck on the home stretch.
 
I like the idea of this quest. Not only gaining favor with the CS, but free workers as well. It sounds like the free workers and gold could be what was meant by "keeping military units near a CS can earn swag" from one of the earlier articles.

Plus it hints at CS's giving a quest to Civs for helping them remove the bullying Civ's units from their lands. So instead of just , go kill this other CS for us, it's go kill this other Civ for us.
The last quest is already in the game. If a CS is at war with, say, America, it can ask you to kill 5 American units for influence, this is current Civ 5.

The problem with this quest, like with a quest against another CS, is that you have to make a declaration of war for it, resulting in a global diplo hit that lasts for the rest of the game, Oh-oh.
I agree with you, I like the idea of the quest, but when the developers don't do something about these severe diplo hits, it's just another quest I would never consider doing. Gaining temporary favour with one City State at the cost of losing permanent favour with about everybody else? The developers need to look at that, otherwise we as players can't go anywhere with their nice quest ideas!
 
I think they should expand it to "come to our aid against the Americans." This would include both killing American units and negotiating peace with the Americans and the City-State. That way there isn't a perverse incentive to go to war just so you can gain favor with the CS.

I don't think the diplo hit (except with the Americans) is all that severe if you don't capture any cities. If it is, they should reduce that. I know it's tricky, but they do need to figure out a way for the AI to distinguish between a just war and a war of aggression, especially if the civ fighting the war doesn't profit from it by taking cities.
 
I think they should expand it to "come to our aid against the Americans." This would include both killing American units and negotiating peace with the Americans and the City-State. That way there isn't a perverse incentive to go to war just so you can gain favor with the CS.

I don't think the diplo hit (except with the Americans) is all that severe if you don't capture any cities. If it is, they should reduce that. I know it's tricky, but they do need to figure out a way for the AI to distinguish between a just war and a war of aggression, especially if the civ fighting the war doesn't profit from it by taking cities.

This is the main problem I have with diplomacy. The AI tends to just lump all "war" in without context. It would be kind of neat if declaring war on a civ and liberating a CS they had conquered gave you a positive diplo boost with all other civs and CSes.
 
I don't think the diplo hit (except with the Americans) is all that severe if you don't capture any cities.
Currently you are allowed one declaration of war that is free of a diplo hit. The second one counts and can already give you a warmonger status with war sensitive civs like India.
Declarations against CS's or ordinary civs are counted in the same way for this.
If you've captured the capital of a civ this civ will like you less, but I didn't think capturing ordinary cities counted.
 
Alk3Crimson, yeah, liberation should be a positive boost. Any war that doesn't raze enemy cities or leave you better off should be relatively cost neutral, especially if they declared war on you or you declare war on a warmonger.
 
I think they should expand it to "come to our aid against the Americans." This would include both killing American units and negotiating peace with the Americans and the City-State. That way there isn't a perverse incentive to go to war just so you can gain favor with the CS.

I don't think the diplo hit (except with the Americans) is all that severe if you don't capture any cities. If it is, they should reduce that. I know it's tricky, but they do need to figure out a way for the AI to distinguish between a just war and a war of aggression, especially if the civ fighting the war doesn't profit from it by taking cities.


As far as I know you only get the warmonger penalty for declaring war and eliminatig a civ where did you get the information that you get a diplo hit for capturing cities? can you post it?


If you declare twice or wipe out a civ you are a warmonger with certain leaders its a little less


However I do agree that the warmonger penalty should be focussed on capturing cities not just declaring

This is the main problem I have with diplomacy. The AI tends to just lump all "war" in without context. It would be kind of neat if declaring war on a civ and liberating a CS they had conquered gave you a positive diplo boost with all other civs and CSes.


It should use the option like in europe universal that you need a reason to go to war with if you have no reason then you get a diplomatic hit

Actually makes more sence
 
Currently you are allowed one declaration of war that is free of a diplo hit. The second one counts and can already give you a warmonger status with war sensitive civs like India.
Declarations against CS's or ordinary civs are counted in the same way for this.
If you've captured the capital of a civ this civ will like you less, but I didn't think capturing ordinary cities counted.

Capturing ordinary cities will still count against you via envy of lands you have. And this applies to most civs around you.
 
Capturing ordinary cities will still count against you via envy of lands you have. And this applies to most civs around you.

The "envy of lands" modifier is something that really irritates me. No matter how cordial you try to be with your neighbors, this always leads them to attack eventually. Are there any civs that don't normally have this modifier towards you? Are there some that have it more often?
 
The "envy of lands" modifier is something that really irritates me. No matter how cordial you try to be with your neighbors, this always leads them to attack eventually. Are there any civs that don't normally have this modifier towards you? Are there some that have it more often?

Why is it bad? You won't run into it all the time, your friends are least likely to envy as well.

Envy is controlled by a stat modifier related to the AI, not all neighbours will envy your lands, or rather, envy you enough to show in the tool tip.

What i'm referring to generally is that if you are taking cities in a war, the AI losing those cities will have a high probability of envying your lands, which is an indirect way of penalizing you, rather than a flat warmonger penalty per city taken.

Further, the AI's neighbours envy will transfer to you. This is realistic. If an AI already wants certain lands and it switched owners, it should naturally transfer to the new owner.

RE: previous post I also failed to mention there's a 'reckless expansion' penalty. If you gain a bunch of cities through a peace treaty or simply took a bunch of cities, some AI will penalize you for 'reckless expansion'. Again another indirect penalty to warmongering that isn't necessarily tied to a per city penalty.
 
The last quest is already in the game. If a CS is at war with, say, America, it can ask you to kill 5 American units for influence, this is current Civ 5.

The problem with this quest, like with a quest against another CS, is that you have to make a declaration of war for it, resulting in a global diplo hit that lasts for the rest of the game, Oh-oh.
I agree with you, I like the idea of the quest, but when the developers don't do something about these severe diplo hits, it's just another quest I would never consider doing. Gaining temporary favour with one City State at the cost of losing permanent favour with about everybody else? The developers need to look at that, otherwise we as players can't go anywhere with their nice quest ideas!

No, it's not the same thing. You're talking about the Civ being at war with the CS already. I'm talking about the Bullying of a CS by just having your troops in their borders, when not at war with them. Sure it probably means they want the units killed, but it could also mean, they just want the civ to demand the removal of the troops.

Also, one of the articles did say the AI will no longer hold grudges for the entire game.
 
I have to say this is one of my main annoyances that AI hold grudges all game long and how broken the Warmonger penalty is. 1 War and you are fine, 2 and you are Hitler.
 
Back
Top Bottom