GamesCom Impression

[Ahriman]

Yes, but with a large navy (say 4-5 triremes?) it would be lame during wars to have your fleet strung out in a massive parade line along the coast behind you, with only the front units able to actually engage the enemy.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, but with a large navy (say 4-5 triremes?) it would be lame during wars to have your fleet strung out in a massive parade line along the coast behind you, with only the front units able to actually engage the enemy.

Well I think Triremes do have ranged bombardment... but you are right... with 2 hexes, there is much more space.

 

[Bluetooth]

.... I moved the Warrior up and attacked. The Brute was behind the Warrior and couldn't attack that turn, as the Warrior was essentially standing in the way.

Reading this I wonder how much effect Zone of Control has on battles in Civ 5. I remember ZOC from Civ 2 and I can still hear that irritating beep when you couldn't move a unit because of ZOC.

 

[Lyoncet]

ZoCs are back, and it takes all of a unit's move points to make one move through enemy ZoC (as revealed in today's podcast). So they won't be the enormous PITA they were in Civ II (thank you!) but they'll still play a huge role in that you can't punch through one front-line soldier and then run your cavalry through their archers unchecked. Among other things, of course.

 

[Ituralde]

ZoCs are back, and it takes all of a unit's move points to make one move through enemy ZoC (as revealed in today's podcast). So they won't be the enormous PITA they were in Civ II (thank you!) but they'll still play a huge role in that you can't punch through one front-line soldier and then run your cavalry through their archers unchecked. Among other things, of course.

Yeah Zone Of Control slows you down. While I was getting at that Archer behind the barbarian Brute I could only pass the Brute at one tile per turn, so that left one turn where the barbs could have annihilated me. Probably due to the difficulty setting they didn't.

 

[Venereus]

Yeah Zone Of Control slows you down. While I was getting at that Archer behind the barbarian Brute I could only pass the Brute at one tile per turn, so that left one turn where the barbs could have annihilated me. Probably due to the difficulty setting they didn't.

Well that would suck. Difficulty settings turning the AI into over the top retards is too much.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The Zone of Control Mechanic, as mentioned in the podcast is extremely interesting:

But what that means in our game is if you move a unit from one tile adjacent to an enemy to another tile adjacent to that same enemy it uses up your turn, no matter how many movement points you have.

So leaving the ZoC of one enemy unit to enter the ZoC of another has no effect. Also, as quoted, it ends that unit's turn - so it does not only affect movement.

 

[Masnie]

Haven't seen any bigger problems (but didn't look around very much).
Only the translation "Biest" (= Beast) for brute and (not sure, Danieldej said it) "Soziale Praktiken" (= social practices) for social policies are...wrong.

Maybe "horrible" was the wrong word here. I'm sure most of the longer texts like the civilopedia entries will be alright. It's the smaller things that really irked me, like after finishing a research it said "Beendet: Das Rad", which sounds clunky. Same thing with the combat calculations: "unbedeutender Sieg" doesn't tell me that it's going to be a close battle, but it should.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well that would suck. Difficulty settings turning the AI into over the top retards is too much.

Well to be fair those are barbarians.... and if higher difficulty is going to be smarter AI, then lower difficulty means dumber AI (which is why bonuses are usually the way to go)

 

[Lyoncet]

Well to be fair those are barbarians.... and if higher difficulty is going to be smarter AI, then lower difficulty means dumber AI (which is why bonuses are usually the way to go)

Or, you could have competent AI at all levels and make them less aggressive or give them production/science penalties at low levels. Having to give out bonuses to make up for lackluster AI is not the way to go about it (in my opinion, of course).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Or, you could have competent AI at all levels and make them less aggressive or give them production/science penalties at low levels. Having to give out bonuses to make up for lackluster AI is not the way to go about it (in my opinion, of course).

well its either
1. Best possible AI with bonuses (or player penalties) at high and penalties (or player bonuses) at low
OR
2. Best possible AI at higher levels, stupid AI at lower levels

#1 is typically the best.
But I can definitely see #2 for barbs.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Lyoncet

Less agressive AI != Less smart AI . In fact ,a lot of the times being agressive is the less smart thing to do ( see: Civ IV Monty )

 

[Venereus]

well its either
1. Best possible AI with bonuses (or player penalties) at high and penalties (or player bonuses) at low
OR
2. Best possible AI at higher levels, stupid AI at lower levels

#1 is typically the best.
But I can definitely see #2 for barbs.

Now you're insulting the poor barbs! They're not dumb people, they just disagree with you! They are just against the very concept of civilization, and frankly, I must admit I'm somewhat attracted by their way of thinking. Civilized society has done many great things, but it's also done terrible, terrible damage.

 

[Lyoncet]

Oh yeah, I'm ok with barbs being dumber at lower levels. Even if it doesn't really make sense from a historical perspective.

@Lyoncet

Less agressive AI != Less smart AI . In fact ,a lot of the times being agressive is the less smart thing to do ( see: Civ IV Monty )

I know, that's why I said:

Or, you could have competent AI at all levels and make them less aggressive or give them production/science penalties at low levels. Having to give out bonuses to make up for lackluster AI is not the way to go about it (in my opinion, of course).

as an alternative to making them dumber (aggressive in the case meaning in pursuit of a particular goal, not necessarily in warmongering).

 

[Celevin]

Or, you could have competent AI at all levels and make them less aggressive or give them production/science penalties at low levels. Having to give out bonuses to make up for lackluster AI is not the way to go about it (in my opinion, of course).

Giving out penalties at lower levels is the same as giving out bonuses at higher levels. Don't ever expect to fight an amazing AI in a game like Civ. It won't happen, it's too complex of a game.

Why are people happy to fight swarms and swarms of enemies in other games, but when it comes to Civ, they get peeved if the AI out-produces them to make it a challenge?

 

[Lyoncet]

Giving out penalties at lower levels is the same as giving out bonuses at higher levels.

No, it's vastly different in implication. If the balancing act for the difficulty slider is "higher levels = big production bonuses," you can expect that the AI will probably not be scaling as you get into high levels (although I realize that it can be very difficult to do). If what the difficulty slider means is "lower levels get production deficits," you can expect that once you get past noble and that evens out, the higher levels' AI are going to get better and better. So on a functional level, I agree with you, but on a cosmic one, not so much.

Why are people happy to fight swarms and swarms of enemies in other games, but when it comes to Civ, they get peeved if the AI out-produces them to make it a challenge?

Because Civ isn't Diablo. When I play Civ, my preference is to see if I can outmuscle (strategically) smarter and smarter AIs. The smarter you can get them before you have to start making up for their deficits by giving them production/science bonuses, the better. Again, just in my opinion, but it seems to be a pretty common one.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No, it's vastly different in implication. If the balancing act for the difficulty slider is "higher levels = big production bonuses," you can expect that the AI will probably not be scaling as you get into high levels (although I realize that it can be very difficult to do). If what the difficulty slider means is "lower levels get production deficits," you can expect that once you get past noble and that evens out, the higher levels' AI are going to get better and better. So on a functional level, I agree with you, but on a cosmic one, not so much.



Because Civ isn't Diablo. When I play Civ, my preference is to see if I can outmuscle (strategically) smarter and smarter AIs. The smarter you can get them before you have to start making up for their deficits by giving them production/science bonuses, the better. Again, just in my opinion, but it seems to be a pretty common one.

So you want strategically dumb AIs on lower levels, but bonuses on higher levels?
instead of
Bonuses on higher levels + Penalties on lower levels

I'd much prefer they spend their AI team making the best possible AI... and just give bonuses or penalties to get the different levels instead of wasting time designing a dumb AI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Actually, if AI is programmed well, it will be defined as set of rules. It would be quite easy to disable some rules for lower-level AI or make them less effective.

 

[r_rolo1]

That would be fine and dandy if we actually have a AI that can perform minimally well ( thus allowing some downgrading without castrophic failure ) . I don't expect that.

 

[Lyoncet]

I pretty much agree with the "make the best AI possible" approach (and if it comes down to it, by all means do that and then give production penalties to lower levels). But it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to get AI to behave in pretty sub-optimal ways. Either strategically (not really shooting for any victory) or tactically (leaving that farm there when you hit Sci Meth and oil springs up beneath it).