How has CiV changed since it was brought out?

[nokmirt]

I thought this would be an interesting topic, so we can discuss changes that have been done to the game and why?

One thing I did not like taken out was pacts of secrecy? Why was this done? How come they did not try to make that element of the game better, before doing away with it?

What other diplomatic options have been discarded? There is one I cannot think of offhand, perhaps you can remind me of some.

What other elements have been taken out of the game by the devs, that you think were important and could have been fixed?

 

[apocalypse105]

The technology tree has drasticly improved And balance issues from units has improved however there are still some things I found really unballanced:

Spearman should have a higher combat strenght So it can counter horseman better horseman should have a higher combat strenght so its stronger then a swordsman but still has the penalty against cities and a counter unit spearman..

Just like age of empires and every other game horseman, knights, cavalry are strong units but are easy to counter by pikeman heavy infantry or other cavalry... But can be decisive in a battle I didn't see that in civ 5 a shame

Strangly enough at the beginning of the game horseman where really strong and i thinx the spearman was used more

 

[Mesix]

They removed the scientist slots from the library. This was a really good change for balance because before the change it was very easy for a player to:

1. Beeline Writing
2. Build a Library in a high city and the Great Library in a high city.
3. Tech to Iron Working
4. Use the Free Tech from the GL for Metal Casting.
5. Use a GS from running specialists to bulb Steel
6. Run over all opponents with Long Swordsmen while they still have Spearmen with a few Swordsmen.

Now the early game is much better balanced and not as easy to exploit.

 

[Maktaka]

One thing I did not like taken out was pacts of secrecy? Why was this done? How come they did not try to make that element of the game better, before doing away with it?

Addressing this particular element, getting rid of Pacts of Secrecy (is it wrong that the acronym makes me giggle?) was necessary to provide more transparency in diplomacy. PoS are, well, SECRET, and allowed for your relationship with a civilization to completely tank without the player having any indication as to why. If the PoS were listed in the modifiers, well then it rather takes out the whole secrecy aspect.

Moreover, PoS don't mirror real-world diplomacy. PoS are childish, a way of saying "I'm upset with you but I won't tell you why." The stakes are too high in the real world for such games; you publicly explain your disagreements with another country in order to gain allies against that country for their actions.

PoS DID allow the player to feel sneaky, building backdoor alliances against a growing threat, but the fun ends once they can be used against you.

 

[qalsip1977]

You can still (via the trade screen) bribe one AI to DoW another...which in essence accomplishes the same task! You can DoF Washington so he likes you, then bribe Monty to kill him, and maintain good relations with both. I play a lot of peaceful game (mainly cultural) and this is the way I survive in deity

 

[nokmirt]

Addressing this particular element, getting rid of Pacts of Secrecy (is it wrong that the acronym makes me giggle?) was necessary to provide more transparency in diplomacy. PoS are, well, SECRET, and allowed for your relationship with a civilization to completely tank without the player having any indication as to why. If the PoS were listed in the modifiers, well then it rather takes out the whole secrecy aspect.

Moreover, PoS don't mirror real-world diplomacy. PoS are childish, a way of saying "I'm upset with you but I won't tell you why." The stakes are too high in the real world for such games; you publicly explain your disagreements with another country in order to gain allies against that country for their actions.

PoS DID allow the player to feel sneaky, building backdoor alliances against a growing threat, but the fun ends once they can be used against you.

I disagree with this, there has to be an element of doing something shady in diplomacy and politics. Have you ever heard of the KGB and CIA? There should be shady backdoor alliances, since when is the human race saintly?

 

[BenAxiom]

One thing I did not like taken out was pacts of secrecy? Why was this done? [...] What other diplomatic options have been discarded? There is one I cannot think of offhand, perhaps you can remind me of some.

Pact of Cooperation. As I recall, they didn't function (much?), and their real-world referents aren't clear, so from my standpoint, it's not surprising they removed them in favor of declaration of friendship and denounce.

 

[nokmirt]

Pact of Cooperation. As I recall, they didn't function (much?), and their real-world referents aren't clear, so from my standpoint, it's not surprising they removed them in favor of declaration of friendship and denounce.

Yes, that was it a pact of cooperation. They should have some kind of treaty system added to diplomacy.

 

[Maktaka]

I disagree with this, there has to be an element of doing something shady in diplomacy and politics. Have you ever heard of the KGB and CIA? There should be shady backdoor alliances, since when is the human race saintly?

That's espionage, not which was nothing like how PoS worked. Secret alliances are by definition not secret if you publicly treat the target differently as a result, it sort of tips off the target that "lol we r planning against you". Pacts of Secrecy were in no way mechanically different that a mutual denouncement of a single target. If you want to see some skullduggery added into CiV, push for a true espionage system rather than restoring the broken PoS.

 

[nokmirt]

That's espionage, not which was nothing like how PoS worked. Secret alliances are by definition not secret if you publicly treat the target differently as a result, it sort of tips off the target that "lol we r planning against you". Pacts of Secrecy were in no way mechanically different that a mutual denouncement of a single target. If you want to see some skullduggery added into CiV, push for a true espionage system rather than restoring the broken PoS.

Well that is essentially what I meant. We need espionage back in some shape or form. I would love to see that.

I also believe that city states should be free game unless they are protected by a parent civ. In other words if you attack a city state the whole world does not get mad and denounce you and label you a warmonger. But the parent state should. This would help with chain denouncements. If you choose to attack a 'PROTECTED' city state, then you have a chance of making a new enemy. However, just because the human player or another AI civ attacks the CS, does not mean the whole world will turn against them automatically. This should change. If they do keep these denouncements make them come from local civs who have direct influence with the aggressor civ. Ones that share common borders.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

All the patch changes summed up:
Less crashing.
Nerfing thing's because AI did'nt know how to use things.
Made AI more agressive because that would obviously make it less stupid.
Moving around all the policies about 5 times and confusing everyone.

 

[nokmirt]

All the patch changes summed up:
Less crashing.
Nerfing thing's because AI did'nt know how to use things.
Made AI more agressive because that would obviously make it less stupid.
Moving around all the policies about 5 times and confusing everyone.

The AI, aggressive it may be, seems to build as many cannon as infantry. The AI army just moves back and forth without any hint of what it is supposed to do. If they had programmed it 2% better, perhaps it would have taken two cities I abandoned 70 turns ago. Instead, I have to laugh to myself, they are still thriving! The AI army did not even pillage my gold, mines, or food sources. They are just moving back and forth with many units not even attacking. One of their fifty cannon takes a pot shot at one of my cities per turn. It is really pathetic. The AI is far far worse in this game than in any civ game I have played so far. It is truly a tragedy of programming ills, with current technology at their fingertips, firaxis cannot help the AI system in this game even take a city. They should surround the city with their infantry, pound it from afar with their artillery, without stopping until the city capitulates. To not give the AI this basic tactic is just stupid in a game including conquest and war.

 

[Derpy Hooves]

The AI, aggressive it may be, seems to build as many cannon as infantry. The AI army just moves back and forth without any hint of what it is supposed to do. If they had programmed it 2% better, perhaps it would have taken two cities I abandoned 70 turns ago. Instead, I have to laugh to myself, they are still thriving! The AI army did not even pillage my gold, mines, or food sources. They are just moving back and forth with many units not even attacking. One of their fifty cannon takes a pot shot at one of my cities per turn. It is really pathetic. The AI is far far worse in this game than in any civ game I have played so far. It is truly a tragedy of programming ills, with current technology at their fingertips, firaxis cannot help the AI system in this game even take a city. They should surround the city with their infantry, pound it from afar with their artillery, without stopping until the city capitulates. To not give the AI this basic tactic is just stupid in a game including conquest and war.

I suppose the problem is they have a warped sense of priorities, instead of doing what is necessary, major modifications to the combat AI or just a completely new one they mess around with stuff around it, handicap the player, give the AI bonusses it should'nt need if it did'nt aproach combat like a dancing competition or just downright make it more agressive, making the game less fun but creating a false form of dificulty by making the likelyhood of huge opposing warmonger empires alot higher.

To me it all reeks of disinterest due to money.

Also in the patch changes I forgot stone, where would we be without that right?

 

[ViterboKnight]

The technology tree has drasticly improved And balance issues from units has improved however there are still some things I found really unballanced:

Spearman should have a higher combat strenght So it can counter horseman better horseman should have a higher combat strenght so its stronger then a swordsman but still has the penalty against cities and a counter unit spearman..

Just like age of empires and every other game horseman, knights, cavalry are strong units but are easy to counter by pikeman heavy infantry or other cavalry... But can be decisive in a battle I didn't see that in civ 5 a shame

Strangly enough at the beginning of the game horseman where really strong and i thinx the spearman was used more

I totally agree that units (spears/pikes first) must be rebalanced. When I attack horsemen with spears, or knights with pikes, I expect an easy victory, not just a draw (6 damage for both).

 

[Bob_]

I remember the good old times when

- Gandhi backstabbed you every 20 turns for no reason
- 10 of 11 AI in the game declared war on you in the same turn, but only 1 or 2 actually attacked because the others were so far away
- you could take over the world with 4 horsemen
- AI's gave all cities but their capital to their attacker although they didnt lose a single city before (and we are talking not about 1 or 2 cities but about 15-20 sometimes)


I also remind of things like:

- The minimum city distance was increased from 2 to 3 so that the ai doesnt build its cities so near to each other
- the stating of diplomacy modificators (before the AI was just crazy to us)
- the strengthening of tanks and the weakening of mech. infantery
- the nerfing of the food from maritime city-states which pretty much solved every problem you had once you could get one of them

 

[apocalypse105]

Well that is essentially what I meant. We need espionage back in some shape or form. I would love to see that.

I also believe that city states should be free game unless they are protected by a parent civ. In other words if you attack a city state the whole world does not get mad and denounce you and label you a warmonger. But the parent state should. This would help with chain denouncements. If you choose to attack a 'PROTECTED' city state, then you have a chance of making a new enemy. However, just because the human player or another AI civ attacks the CS, does not mean the whole world will turn against them automatically. This should change. If they do keep these denouncements make them come from local civs who have direct influence with the aggressor civ. Ones that share common borders.

They shouldn't make the warmonger diplomatic hit not global it is more like a diplo hit against the human because he is winning.. Kinda stupid

They should make the warmonger hit individual for example if you declare war on someone who has friends all their friends will hate you for it and you get a negatif modifier : you atacked one of our friend.

Same with city states if you kill or atack a city state not hole the world should hate you only the ones who protect it

makes sence and thats how diplomacy should work. So you can at least maintaine 1 relationship...


Olso if the AI wasn't so agressive (wich some people thinx is a good thing) it now makes it war decission on numbers(military might,happiness,gold) except flavor.

Because of this you see numbers of decleration of wars an denounciation and backstabbing between the AI

As result the system of becoming friends and denouncing their enemies doens't work. Because it change every 10 / 20 or 30 turns.
Maybe you thought it was a good idea to singn a delceration of friendship with kamehameha because 4 other leaders has olso a decleration of friendship with him and you olso denounced the same leaders. But at sudden all those 4 leaders denounce kamehameha and become friends with the one you denounced yes great!!!!!!!!!

So why should we sign a decleration of friendship or actually care about diplomacy? After my second decleration of war everyone hates me and if i play peacefully everyone hates me because I signed a decleration of friendship or I dont have a military

It olso doens't matter at who I declare war on thats not how diplomacy works war has seriously consequences on diplomacy but not global. Not hole the world is going to hate a country for a war only the countries who are friends with it or have a benefit from it.

 

[apocalypse105]

I totally agree that units (spears/pikes first) must be rebalanced. When I attack horsemen with spears, or knights with pikes, I expect an easy victory, not just a draw (6 damage for both).

I olso dont understant why the cavalry unit and the knight only have 3 movement point except 4 its one lower then a horseman and its a more advanced unit?

 

[nokmirt]

I olso dont understant why the cavalry unit and the knight only have 3 movement point except 4 its one lower then a horseman and its a more advanced unit?

They must have this in place because they feel the knights had heavy armor on themselves and their horses, encumbering them with a lot of restrictive weight. However I am not sure why cavalry is restricted to 3 movement. Perhaps 3 is the standard movement rate for horse type units.

Maybe the reason for horsemen having 4 movement is for balance to give them a movement edge so they can mop up enemy units that are damaged and the one extra movement makes them more formidable for accomplishing this. It must be for balance.

BTW apocalypse, I was thinking they should bring back a diplomat unit in some form. Perhaps embassies as well. Civs may hate each other for awhile, but there should always be some chance of later friendship. Things change overtime. Remember all the time Britain and France hated each other, hundreds of years. Then they became very close allies during the industrial age. That is why I believe diplomacy should begin anew in each era, or even every two eras. This would be my plan.

Early diplomacy builds through the Ancient and Classical Eras. Diplomacy is reset once the Middle Ages start, so all civs are friendly towards each other. Or diplomacy can be distributed randomly. So whoever was your enemy in the first two eras, may now be friendly with you. Or vice versa. They also may have been your enemy and now they are neutral. On the other hand depending, they still may be you enemy. This system would shake things up a bit and make the game more interesting. We Americans hated the British a few times in history, now they are friends, perhaps targets for friendly jokes, but friends.

The remaining Eras would have diplomacy change at random, when each civ reaches that era. Another thing, say your at war with Greece in the classical era, and he gets to the Middle Ages before you, he would still be at war with you, and his true intentions towards you would be hidden. You could choose to open negotiations to see if he'll end the war easy, or regardless of how he may feel during this era, you want more of his cities, and choose to continue fighting. It should be up to each civ in this kind of situation. Keep in mind that Greece would learn to hate you pretty quickly if you took this route, especially if his randomly calculated diplomacy status towards you for this era is supposed to be friendly.

We can either have diplomacy reset every era starting with middle ages, or diplomacy is randomly calculated. Remember wars have to be ended through diplomacy. This would require some programming among our friends at firaxis, but it can done. If Roosevelt can stand up from his wheelchair and say, "Don't say it can't be done!" Then I am sure they could handle it. A lot of times I hear, "Oh god they would never be able to program that." To me that is truely pathetic, they all know C++, believe me they could do a lot more interesting things for this game.

 

[OrsonM]

I've seen some changes, but nothing I'd write home about. Which is odd, because there was been a lot of work in every patch note.

The most noticeable changes could be:
-2 new buildings, and 1 new resource (1 new very annoying resource at that).
-finishers for the policies, although I still think it's tame (the synergies should be all over the place). Liberty was reworked extensively from being the worst Policy, to the most over powered, to a bit less overpowered. Other policies were beefed up a bit (Piety was nerfed).
-complete reworking of technology agreements, now no one is sure what they do.
-Palace gives 1 hammer!!!
-The AI still feels like playing with a bunch of jerks, now they are a bunch of jerks doped up on those pills old people take to be less racist.