General Philosophy Shifts for Civ5: Only Broad Changes Here

[buffalo6542]

i dont think that it would work. because if you build a spy, then you need a way to talk 2 them without speaking. thats why you need alphabet to build them

 

[Scilly_guy]

This is just the start of a concept, I understand the reasoning behind requiring alphabet to talk to your spys, and paper to draw your maps on to trade them. But I am trying to get away from the dash to research aesthetics so you can build the Parthenon, or Masonry to build the Great Wall. I am aware that they tried having technologies spread along trade routes and it didn't work very well, and that it wouldn't be fun. Going back to the alphabet, and numerals, there were many systems invented, in the western world we use Arabic numerals and Latin characters which are themselves from the Greek. However Hebrew is completely different as is Chinese and Oriental [written] languages.

Perhaps if you trade for a technology in the game it causes some crossover of culture, if you completely learn a tech from another civ then you would be more akin than half learned tech.

 

[rysmiel]

This is just the start of a concept, I understand the reasoning behind requiring alphabet to talk to your spys, and paper to draw your maps on to trade them. But I am trying to get away from the dash to research aesthetics so you can build the Parthenon, or Masonry to build the Great Wall.

Why ?

The solution to that I prefer is, double the number of techs, double the number of useful wonders, double the number of sensible strategies to get ahead, your game isn't killed when Hammurabi gets the one key wonder one turn ahead of you.

 

[Scilly_guy]

No I know losing out on building a wonder isn't the end of the world. I was just thinking that building a wonder is a learning experience for a civ, when the Chinese built the wall they would have been much better builders by the end of it, but equally they would have needed to be good to attempt such a project. I was just trying to rationalise a bit, maybe I fell flat on my face, maybe they is an idea there, but for now I've lost wherever it is.

 

[RedRalph]

I had an idea last night for a new research system. I have no big problems with the present one, but I think this is one aspect of the game which is balanced way to far towards gameplay at the expense of realism.

We all know IRL research is mainly by accident. No one sits down and goes "Tell you what, lets look into developing the concept of replacable parts. We should have it pinned down in 20 years". It gradually comes about, then when it gets to a certian level, a tech can be developed to go in a specific direction. So for example, Television came about initially by accident, then when a certain level of TV technology was attained, people could work on it to develop it in the directyions they wanted.

so my proposal for Civ 5 research is this. you have a tech slider, but it is divided into various categories, Military, Building, Economic, etc, and you can adjust those with sliders too, so you can decide to give high funding to military research in general, but until military research builds up a certain amount of beakers, you dont know exactly what you are going to get out of it. So In the later game, If you are giving a high priority to military research, you may get rocketry, you may get stealth, you may get laser etc... after completing a certain amount of research, lets arbitrarily say 800 beakers worth of military research, your advisor appears and tells you "Sir/Madam, our military research has led us to discover a new technology which could come in very uself, ROCKETRY. do you want to a) increase military funding so we may soon exploit this tech to our advantage b) decrease military research on this. we have other priorities or c) keep military finding at present levels. We can wait.

this would apply to every type of tech except political ones (Monarchy, Democracy, Communism etc). I think like IRL, they should become available to you when social circumstances make them available. So:

Monarchy becomes available when you have 5 or more cities, linked by roads and with courthouses in each.

Communism becomes available when you have at least 5 factories, and there is a revolt in one of the cities with a factory (this could be a random event).

Serfdom becomes available when 15 or more farms are being worked for a perdiod of 5 consecituve turns.

and so on. I'm not saying these circumstances should be set, but social conditions should make government and economic civics availible IMO. thoughts please?

 

[Rub'Rum]

Yeah, I think in the general same way RedRalphWiggum...

They had started to do something like this in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. The default option was "blind research", that is, you could not see what you were about to research, but you had the option to focus on things like "pure science" or "military" which would increase the odds of getting certain types of technologies. I thought it was great. I bet a lot of high level Civ players went "boohoo I want my micromanagement" and turned it off though.

But I like your ideas. Prerequesites. Of course, they'd have to be tweaked a bit... If you're stuck in a small peninsula for a part of the game and can't have enough cities for something, that'd suck.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah the examples I used are just rough ideas, obviously various factors would alter them, mapsize etc... and if anyone would like to come up with any other prerequisites for civics I'd love to hear them.

 

[rysmiel]

I had an idea last night for a new research system. I have no big problems with the present one, but I think this is one aspect of the game which is balanced way to far towards gameplay at the expense of realism.

I'm not sure I see a way of shifting this balance that makes the game any more fun, though.

We all know IRL research is mainly by accident. No one sits down and goes "Tell you what, lets look into developing the concept of replacable parts. We should have it pinned down in 20 years"

Depends. I mean, as a research scientist myself, most of what I do is aimed at "here is interesting problem X. How can it be solved ?"

so my proposal for Civ 5 research is this. you have a tech slider, but it is divided into various categories, Military, Building, Economic, etc, and you can adjust those with sliders too, so you can decide to give high funding to military research in general, but until military research builds up a certain amount of beakers, you dont know exactly what you are going to get out of it. So In the later game, If you are giving a high priority to military research, you may get rocketry, you may get stealth, you may get laser etc... after completing a certain amount of research, lets arbitrarily say 800 beakers worth of military research, your advisor appears and tells you "Sir/Madam, our military research has led us to discover a new technology which could come in very uself, ROCKETRY. do you want to a) increase military funding so we may soon exploit this tech to our advantage b) decrease military research on this. we have other priorities or c) keep military finding at present levels. We can wait.

It probably won't surprise you that I do not like this at all. There are so many things about the Civ experience in various games that depend on understanding research paths, on knowing one wants tech A to be able to see resource B and build unit C, on planning tech trades and so on; adding the extra uncertainties here just makes it harder to do actual strategic thought, and I do not see it bringing any bonus to the experience of the game itself that compensates for this blurring of the ability to play it at that particular strategic scale.

this would apply to every type of tech except political ones (Monarchy, Democracy, Communism etc). I think like IRL, they should become available to you when social circumstances make them available. So:

That thought smacks of historical determinism on a scale which I am inclined to reject utterly as having any place in Civ.

Communism becomes available when you have at least 5 factories, and there is a revolt in one of the cities with a factory (this could be a random event).

Or we could just bring back the pre-Civ IV unhappiness model and have it happen if you allow your cities to fall into civil disorder.

 

[cassembler]

I haven't checked this thread in a while, but I saw this post and spend some 20-30 minutes reading it and trying to understand where you are coming from, Rysmiel. So here are some thoughts.

...I don't quite get what it is that people opposed to micromanagement actually want from their games, though. ... A game where you can manage a vast empire over a large span of game time and still finish it in an evening ?

I would like this option, yes. And I'm willing to pay for it, double or triple. Even if it's called 'Civ5 Lite'

Part 1) If the game is to abstract stuff away to an empire-wide level, or a region-wide level within an empire, it can't possibly do so with with flexibility and power of a human player who puts the time and effort and understanding into using every little element for maximal effect...

Part 2) If those levels of abstraction are to be available in something that is recognisably Civ, they will be abstractions of situations where there are still individual each doing their specific thing, and if that is there under the hood anyway, I want to be able to get my hands on it directly.

Part 1) 'Flexibility and power' definitions aside, this all boils down to what people like in their video game diet. Again, if I owned a company, you'd be my QA guy (or research), because you enjoy details and tactics. (Kudos on the 'all-too-rare-these-days' connection between the micro and the macro.) This is fantastic! Similarly nice is a preference for strategic planning and broad policy manipulation, and distaste for micro-level decision making. Why can't both exist?

Part 2) Then we agree! In fact, they don't even really need to be under the hood, if the interface is properly conceived. If I don't click on it to see what I can do with/ to it, I don't want to be penalized*. Likewise, if you click on it and change something, you should be rewarded, at least with some tangible effect worth the effort.

(*Unless an adviser or some information notifies me that something is wrong (Management by Exception))

It seems wrong to me for the levels of achievement and accomplishment one can get by learning to master complex, time-and-energy-consuming gameplay to be reduced to a matter of pushing a few buttons and letting the AI do it; ... but don't keep the dedicated players from getting into the fine detail.

This one was the hardest for me to defend, because you're totally right. IF that's what you want in a video game. However, I come from the camp that leaders (of empires, companies, or even hippie communes) MUST depend on their followers in some way to be autonomous.

All I'm asking is for is to not force me, every turn, to decide what each city is going to produce, what specific space each unit is going to move, or what the exact research path MUST BE. It's 6 here, half a dozen there for me.

 

[Rub'Rum]

If I don't click on it to see what I can do with/ to it, I don't want to be penalized*. Likewise, if you click on it and change something, you should be rewarded, at least with some tangible effect worth the effort.

It seems that it "not getting the benefit if you don't click" is the same as being penalized.

It's weird how "more empire-wide level" seems to equal the loss of so much micromanagement for micro defenders... For me, choosing the location for a city is the most important strategic decision and I can stay there looking at the map for a while before I pick a place. That's strategy for me, and it can be considered for a long time. Once the city is founded though... "tile micromanagement" ... That just seems like the type of decision that I don't want to have to do with, especially later in the game.

 

[RedRalph]

Look, personally I'm a fan of micro management (to a degree, I'm not checking what tiles is being worked in every city every turn) but I recognise a lot of people arent. surely new MM features can be brought in if optional?

 

[Scilly_guy]

I like the way that civ IV has lots of options you can turn on and off or adjust, from simple decisions such as map size and game length to things like tech trading/brokering, always war/peace/either, raging barbarians and others. There are different types of start available, and you can set the number of points you get to build up your civ at the beginning.

Would it be possible to make more game options adjustable in this way so that the micro managers can choose to turn on this little fiddly bit and turn off another aspect of the game, where as someone who wants just just decide what basic tech route their civ should be following can just tick that particular box. So have the whole tech tree scalable, so a macro manager might choose to research from construction, spirituality, growth, military, in the ancient age construction would represent a combination of mining, bronze working and masonry, growth would replace fishing, sailing, pottery, agriculture and the wheel, etc etc. A second level could be as the tree is now and a fine grained level would add even more technologies.

I am not sure how to change movement of units without getting rid of it completely and forcing battle into cities, it seems perfectly logical to me that you can send your unit on a journey that will last 5/10/20 turns and it'll only interrupt you when it gets there or if something happens on its route, it comes across a barbarian do you want to run away, attack or ignore it. You then get the option to fortify, sentry, heal or wait when it has got where it is going. My only addition would be to select which tiles it is watching in sentry mode, you should be able to select any tiles which it can have within its line of sight and return to its current position within the turn, this way ships can patrol quite nicely. Of course it would be good if you could set a patrol route for units which would be a combination of sentry and movement.

Basically what RedRalph said, make features optional.

 

[cassembler]

It seems that it "not getting the benefit if you don't click" is the same as being penalized.

Not necessarily. For example, in previous Civs, you had to manually adjust your science rate to 100% on turn one. In Civ4, it's already done, but the option is there if you want to raise some gold in the early game. You are not penalized for NOT lowering science, but you are not rewarded with the effect of the trade-off.

The problem with on/off options, as stated earlier in this thread, is that it would require extensive programming modifications (notably the AI). I'd rather the efforts be put into a solid core experience.

 

[rysmiel]

Look, personally I'm a fan of micro management (to a degree, I'm not checking what tiles is being worked in every city every turn) but I recognise a lot of people arent. surely new MM features can be brought in if optional?

If the AI can place your working citizens sensibly given your priorities, or automate your workers given priorities, and that's what people want, fine, put that option in. I'm not arguing against that.

I just do not want any modifications that prevent me from micromanaging to the extent that I want, which is moderate to high depending on the game circumstances.

 

[Scilly_guy]

I would say a better example would be city micromanagement, if you leave a city to its own devices it will work whichever tiles it thinks it should, but you might decide that you are not worried about growth right now because you need more hammers right now. Knowing that you can zoom to the city and tell it to work the hills instead of floodplain gives that person an advantage but not knowing it isn't that great a loss. As you say about lowering science, it is a trade-off wealth for research, why anyone would choose to hamper their own research I can't imagine but you seem to think it is a good idea. Perhaps to provide some money to pay for fires in forests or cities, repairs after floods/hurricanes, or disasters in mines/resources. It might also be useful for maintenance in early cities if you grow far too fast but you can turn your research rating down at the time, unless it is already at 0%. But I would not say that that is an example of not doing/learning something and not affecting different players.

This whole argument sounds to me that the game should be just as easy the less you have control over, so what? You want someone who just sits there and presses go to have as successful city as someone who micromanages? I keep learning new things that makes my game better, I only just found out the domestic advisor gives you a list of all your civs that you can sort according to hammers, wealth, beakers, culture (should be output and total rather than having output in parenthesis, in fact how does the culture value here work), great person points and what the city is producing, before that I had to scroll through all my cities to find the best production base. It was well into my civ 3 experience that I learnt about changing which tiles a city worked. I never do tutorials, not if I can help it, so sometimes there are these little micromanagement things I miss, but someone who knows them has the upper hand, what some people seem to want is micromanaging to not give an advantage, now frankly this seems absurd, it would make more sense if micromanagement features were optional like me and RedRalph suggest.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Oh and as for extensive programming modifications, I am sure it would not be that complicated to add a few bools here and there, for the most part that is all I can see that would be affected. Take changing a cities deployment manually for example, if it is on then allow it/run that aspect of the AI, if its not then don't, all that seems to be is a few "if"s and a ticky box on the custom game screen. However I don't know how the AI is written but judging by my final year AI lectures on my degree course (Computer Games Software Engineering) it probably should be that simple. To someone who knows the code well and have access to EVERYTHING, ie the people who would made it, it would be a walk in the park.

 

[rysmiel]

As you say about lowering science, it is a trade-off wealth for research, why anyone would choose to hamper their own research I can't imagine but you seem to think it is a good idea. Perhaps to provide some money to pay for fires in forests or cities, repairs after floods/hurricanes, or disasters in mines/resources. It might also be useful for maintenance in early cities if you grow far too fast but you can turn your research rating down at the time, unless it is already at 0%.

Well, if you are aiming for a cultural victory where you want to build as many wonders as possible in one city, slowing down the global tech rate as much as possible so that nobody runs away with wonder B while you are still finishing wonder A is no bad strategy, and it's easy to imagine game mechanics where reducng your own research rate makes sense as part of that.

This whole argument sounds to me that the game should be just as easy the less you have control over, so what? You want someone who just sits there and presses go to have as successful city as someone who micromanages?

I have no argument with people who want to be able to play the game without micromanaging; if what they really enjoy is a quick simple win, then let them have it. I don't understand finding that fun, but I do grasp that not everyone in the world is like me.

I do think, though, that mastering the game, being able to win at higher levels or to control it decisively at lower difficulty levels, should require willingness to understand and manage things at a fine-grained level.

 

[Scilly_guy]

I have no argument with people who want to be able to play the game without micromanaging; if what they really enjoy is a quick simple win, then let them have it. I don't understand finding that fun, but I do grasp that not everyone in the world is like me.

I do think, though, that mastering the game, being able to win at higher levels or to control it decisively at lower difficulty levels, should require willingness to understand and manage things at a fine-grained level.

So to sum you up, you agree with me:

• Not everyone like the same things
• Make civ modular so people can play with or without the features they like
• Micromanagment is fun so we'll play with these features turned on

As far as my comment on turning down the research rate was that was my understanding of cassembler's comment was that in the early game he/she... they, like to turn the rate down. I get that there are times when you turn it down, you want money for whatever reason is probably the main reason. I am not sure I understand the concept of slowing the Global tech rate down for a cultural victory, surely you want to get to electricity as fast as possible and get the wonders from around there, Eiffel Tower, Broadway, Rock and Roll, Hollywood. Or is it that if you are getting further ahead your opponents are more likely to rush a wonder to keep up?

 

[rysmiel]

I am not sure I understand the concept of slowing the Global tech rate down for a cultural victory, surely you want to get to electricity as fast as possible and get the wonders from around there, Eiffel Tower, Broadway, Rock and Roll, Hollywood. Or is it that if you are getting further ahead your opponents are more likely to rush a wonder to keep up?

In Civ III wonders can't be rushed except with a very rarely occurring Scientific Great Leader, and there's really no way of getting enough culture for a one-city culture win without an almost all-Wonders all-the-time city from the very beginning. Which is an interesting challenge.

 

[Rub'Rum]

The argument that liking less micromanaging means loving quick and easy victories is frustrating to read. I consider that a great strategy game doesn't need micromanaging to be deep. Look at chess (and no, chess doesn't have micromanagement, don't even start).

On these forums, I'm pretty sure the concentration of Civ players who like micromanagement and will defend it in 2 pages dissertation is higher than it is in the real world where there are still, I'm sure, serious Civ fans who simply don't have time to waste on internet forums like I do. I mean, who's the first person to look on the internet to know how to use hammer overflow? Yeah, hammer overflow sure makes me feel the grandeur of direction my civilization.

I don't even know why I'm having this argument though. I think the specific things that annoy me a bit about Civs don't even concern the micromanager that much. For me, it's mainly the concept of units walking around the map that should be a target of future innovations. I don't care about hammer overflow and people who want to optimize and slingshot things and whatnot. It caters to an audience who certainly has the right to expect such things from the game. For me it's just the way war is conducted through units and the way workers are built and used as units on the map just creates this uncomfortable dichotomy in Civ "I'm trying to be a World History remake, a grand civilization leading game, yet I act like Starcraft or Heroes of Might and Magic".