I just want CIV 5 to be a joyful game

[Bostock]

ni hao hclass,

I think Civ V can satisfy you just fine, as long as you're willing to accept that the default game will not be made for you. You can just mod in what you like. Please understand that one man's "obvious truth" is another man's "obvious falsehood." Sometimes the things we are passionate about are only important for us. And please also understand that "big numbers" isn't important for many Civvers -- you can see it in this thread! And the game needs to be made for the majority of potential players, because it is business, not charity. But in a world with modding, there's room for you and everyone else with a minority gameplay need to make the game you really want to play.

Modding is hard work, but you yourself stressed the importance of not being lazy!

Alternatively you can start playing Civ II again, because many of the specific features you mention are in Civ II, with no need to mod. Or play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which has about the same number of the features you request, but has some of the "bigger" ones. (Terraforming up land bridges? You bet!)

 

[Trias]

I have never tried "world builder" before, so, I don't really understand what you mean by "world builder" like abilities.
I think it is stupid to play with modding kits or something alike if you really want to enjoy the game.
It is just like you go and watch a trailer showing you in details (the tricks) how a particular movie is being made before you watch the movie itself. It simply spoil your feel of that movie. Why don't you give it a try and see whether I am right.

World builder mode is a build in feature of civ4. At any time during the game you can press ctrl+W, and basically do all the thing you requested here. Change the terrain, add units, see the whole map, add tech, etc. Press ctrl+W and you return to the normal game. Of course, this IS cheating but you said you didn't mind that.

 

[hclass]

ni ye hao Bostock,

I think Civ V can satisfy you just fine, as long as you're willing to accept that the default game will not be made for you. You can just mod in what you like.

I have good reason not to. (See my previous post)
I do still remember a small cute game created by me when I start programming in the past.
My colleagues play it like no tomorrow... but I myself can't enjoy it at all... I know it is kind of phycho thing... hard to explain.

Please understand that one man's "obvious truth" is another man's "obvious falsehood."

and that is not always true.
It could be an "obvious truth" of many others too.

Sometimes the things we are passionate about are only important for us.

For me, the word "Sometimes" in the above has to be replaced with "Often" if not "Always"

And please also understand that "big numbers" isn't important for many Civvers -- you can see it in this thread!

I can't.
I find many do not agree with me simply because they are worry of the game will become easier... there isn't an absolute relation between BIG NUMBERS and easiness.

And the game needs to be made for the majority of potential players, because it is business, not charity. But in a world with modding, there's room for you and everyone else with a minority gameplay need to make the game you really want to play.

Good point!
But I just want something good (and have big impact) back to the CIV game and I believe I am not in the minority group.

Modding is hard work, but you yourself stressed the importance of not being lazy!

Are you sure?
I thought I have made it very clear that my definition of laziness has fortune as a factor. I don't see a fortune in modding.

Alternatively you can start playing Civ II again, because many of the specific features you mention are in Civ II, with no need to mod. Or play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which has about the same number of the features you request, but has some of the "bigger" ones. (Terraforming up land bridges? You bet!)

Bad suggestion!
Civ4 is far more superior than Civ2 or Alpha Centauri in many aspects. I only want good things from all of them back in CIV5 + anything new which are also good.
Why am I so wrong?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I find many do not agree with me simply because they are worry of the game will become easier... there isn't an absolute relation between BIG NUMBERS and easiness.

Many people also see the aspects you propose as unrealistic. They want to feel like they're a collective consciousness of a real life nation, and their nation having God-like powers of turning water into wine and desert into grasslands breaks their suspension of disbelief.

Not true. Terrain type remain as significant.
I only make it possible for every tile to become perfect city settling spot.
I only open up a second option for you. You can now either stick to the old way keep finding a perfect spot or you can opt to settle at a not so perfect spot quickly and start terrain transforming... that sounds real good.

Terrain type is less significant if you can turn everything to Grassland Floodplain Hill Gold. By doing so, the difference between a Gold Grassland Floodplain Hill and a simple plains tile becomes less pronounced. Terraforming acts as an equalizer between various terrains. And if the terraforming is easy, then the second strategy becomes superior to the first.

Also, making everything more powerful can adverse games negatively. A game of chess where every chessman can move like a Queen is a much worse game then actual chess.

 

[hclass]

Many people also see the aspects you propose as unrealistic. They want to feel like they're a collective consciousness of a real life nation, and their nation having God-like powers of turning water into wine and desert into grasslands breaks their suspension of disbelief.

I can't help that one, umm... probably two, who choose to be hyterical over speeding up terraforming.
I am sorry I can't keep one of my greatest request or suggestion on terraforming just for you two.

Terrain type is less significant if you can turn everything to Grassland Floodplain Hill Gold. By doing so, the difference between a Gold Grassland Floodplain Hill and a simple plains tile becomes less pronounced. Terraforming acts as an equalizer between various terrains. And if the terraforming is easy, then the second strategy becomes superior to the first.

Just let me try my best to understand what you are trying to tell...

1. I am judging the importance/significance of a terrain type by quantifying the benefit it provides when a tile is worked. So, as long as terraforming do not change that attibute, each terrain type remain the same, there isn't such thing as it turn terrain type become more or less significant.

2. After thinking a while, I suppose, you and the Mister who said he has done with me, is talking about the importance of a geographical location based on the terrain formation around it. By prohibiting terrain transformation (or make it very hard), a very good/ very bad spot will most likely remain so for a long time and that makes terrain type significant... am I right? I am serious... answer me! ...

Also, making everything more powerful can adverse games negatively. A game of chess where every chessman can move like a Queen is a much worse game then actual chess.

I like chess analog, I really do.

If a good CIV should be working something close to an ordinary chess game, then recent CIV, particularly Civ4 has added several constrains like Queen no longer moves diagonally, castle moves at most 5 tiles, horse must not have any chessman in adjacent tile before it can move forward etc. I just want those silly constrains to be removed... and my requests have been interpreted as strong as I want all chessman to be the Queen on board.

 

[TheColorQ]

So, you are suggesting building land bridge at peaceful time and it will become an exploit, right?
Let me tell you, not long after you start building your land bridge, you see 3 ships (or more, be they battle type or civil) in one row, right in front of you, they just stay there, still. What will you do?
1. You can send ships to attack them and break the peace. The story continue with what I have mentioned as in my previous reply to you
2. You can go horizontal a bit in an attempt to bypass them (I don't think it is wise). SO they again shift they location to block you again... I think it wil take you forever to reach where you want your land bridge go. (You better choose 1.)
3. You can of course stop build the bridge and go do something more fruitful.

Or for the fourth choice I can expand my non-open borders to simply kick the ships out of the way.

 

[hclass]

Or for the fourth choice I can expand my non-open borders to simply kick the ships out of the way.

Ya! Overall, I mean, don't ever imagine you can easily build a lengthy land bridge...

and I hereby conclude that a speedy terrain transforming is a must in CIV5, Firaxis, do you hear me?

OK,ok. One more example for why I say it opens up plenty of new strategies:
You can dig a circle of water tiles (a river) surrounding your capital, place a battleship there as guard... so if the enemy's army dare to converted into civil ships in order to cross the river, just swallow them up with your battleship.

 

[Lone Wolf]

1. I am judging the importance/significance of a terrain type by quantifying the benefit it provides when a tile is worked. So, as long as terraforming do not change that attibute, each terrain type remain the same, there isn't such thing as it turn terrain type become more or less significant.

Changing terrain changes the attributes as well.

Simplifying, if in any game of Civ a desert changes to Grassland after 30 turns, like a cottage changes to a town, then the difference between the two types are reduced, because after a set time, they become similar.

I can't help that one, umm... probably two, who choose to be hyterical over speeding up terraforming.

Building land bridges across the analogues of Gibraltar or La Manche will trigger more protests then one or two people. See the hysteria when it started to look like Archers in Civ5 are able to shoot two tiles.

 

[hclass]

Changing terrain changes the attributes as well.

Simplifying, if in any game of Civ a desert changes to Grassland after 30 turns, like a cottage changes to a town, then the difference between the two types are reduced, because after a set time, they become similar.

I suppose you are talking about that particular tile (where changes took place) not the type of terrain. The "type" only defines what a terrian is now, it always has the same function.

Building land bridges across the analogues of Gibraltar or La Manche will trigger more protests then one or two people. See the hysteria when it started to look like Archers in Civ5 are able to shoot two tiles.

You have remind me of Nicolaus Copernicus who really has guts.
Don't worry, this is online and I won't get killed.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I suppose you are talking about that particular tile (where changes took place) not the type of terrain. The "type" only defines what a terrian is now, it always has the same function.

Semantics. And I'd argue that there's an inherent difference between a plains tile that is bound to remain plains and a plains tile that it able to be transformed. A simple plastic bottle is certainly worth less then a plastic bottle you can change into a gold statue if you sacrifice a white cock at midnight.

It's all about potential value. Rephrase it as reducing the difference between tiles, if you like.

You have remind me of Nicolaus Copernicus who really has guts.

Pointing out that archers being able to shoot two tiles caused protests is like being Copernicus ?

 

[hclass]

Semantics. And I'd argue that there's an inherent difference between a plains tile that is bound to remain plains and a plains tile that it able to be transformed.

It seems like because you always find an orange is in orange color and if I use a biology tech to quickly change the color of an orange to blue, you get crazy.
Because an orange that is subjected to color change is no more an ordinary fruit as you have recognized... am I correctly describing your logic?

And to you, color is something that if I change it too quickly or easily on any object, it losses its significance or importance, am I again correctly describe what you feel?

A simple plastic bottle is certainly worth less then a plastic bottle you can change into a gold statue if you sacrifice a white cock at midnight.

Gold is gold, plastic remain plastic, they are just type of material. If a Kg of gold worth 1000K and 1 Kg of plastic worth only 200, these two values remain the same now matter how quickly you can magically transform a a golden bottle to a plastic bottle (or vis versa)

I know you are confused. Don't worry, I am almost too.

Pointing out that archers being able to shoot two tiles caused protests is like being Copernicus ?

Do you know how Copernicus die?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Gold is gold, plastic remain plastic, they are just type of material. If a Kg of gold worth 1000K and 1 Kg of plastic worth only 200, these two values remain the same now matter how quickly you can magically transform a a golden bottle to a plastic bottle (or vis versa)

Um, no. If tomorrow someone discovers a relatively cheap way to transform plastic into gold, the prices on both will change (dramatically unfavourably to gold in this case).

Do you know how Copernicus die?

Natural death.

 

[hclass]

Um, no. If tomorrow someone discovers a relatively cheap way to transform plastic into gold, the prices on both will change (dramatically unfavourably to gold in this case).

Not true!
Gold price is determined by demand, not how quickly you can produce it.
Just like if your demand is 20 unit of food per a city, and each grassland tile produces 2, you will need only 10 of them, irregardless of how fast you can convert other no-food terrain to grassland. i.e. for the need of every city, each grassland worth you 2 food, no more, no less.

To be frank, I understand your phycho... I mean I understand a grassland feel cheap since you can easily get it, but that only apply spiritually... and I don't have a magic to turn it into fact.

Natural death.

I thought many attack him of what he has suggested in cosmology and his dealth is due to frustration...
May be my textbook is wrong.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Not true!
Gold price is determined by demand, not how quickly you can produce it.
Just like if your demand is 20 unit of food per a city, and each grassland tile produces 2, you will need only 10 of them, irregardless of how fast you can convert other no-food terrain to grassland.

It's determined by SUPPLY and demand. Everybody on Earth wants water, but you can get it almost everywhere, so it's relatively cheap. Even dirty water can be made clean quickly and relatively inexpeensively.

If there was very little water on the planet, or if it was all dirty and/or took a long time/lot of money to be made clean, then water would be the most expensive commodity on Earth.

Everyone could still want gold; however, if everyone who wanted gold could just have it whenever they wanted, it would still have very little value.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Gold price is determined by demand, not how quickly you can produce it.

The reason the demand for gold is high is its relative rarity. Easiness of manufacturing gold from plastics will plummet the gold prices immediately.

 

[hclass]

The reason the demand for gold is high is its relative rarity. Easiness of manufacturing gold from plastics will plummet the gold prices immediately.

Here is the intersting point, you are judging its value by how much you can sell it but I am judging it base on how many I need (and therefore I will try to produce).

If I just need 10 unit of gold per day, that means irregardless of how many I can make per day, it is a material worth 10 units in production, no more, no less, and unless my demand level change, otherwise its value remain so.

In Civ, I don't buy food from other party, I work it out of my tiles around the city, so my judgement fits the system...

 

[Trias]

Here is the intersting point, you are judging its value by how much you can sell it but I am judging it base on how many I need (and therefore I will try to produce).

If I just need 10 unit of gold per day, that means irregardless of how many I can make per day, it is a material worth 10 units in production, no more, no less, and unless my demand level change, otherwise its value remain so.

In Civ, I don't buy food from other party, I work it out of my tiles around the city, so my judgement fits the system...

It think he is judging the value of gold by how much money he can get for a kilogram on the world market. I can guarantee to you. If today I found a way to (cheaply) convert plastic into gold, the price of gold on the world market would plummet overnight. (I would still be a rich man though )

 

[Shurdus]

hclass:

What is it you expect from this thread, when all you do is nitpicking every little bit of people's grammar and logic rather than discussing anything in-depth? For example, you took the sentence one man's "obvious truth" is another man's "obvious falsehood." and then nitpick the logic behind it as if you do not even try to understand the logic of the statement in the context it was said in. Now you just nitpick and nitpcik and nitpick... Why?

 

[hclass]

It think he is judging the value of gold by how much money he can get for a kilogram on the world market. I can guarantee to you. If today I found a way to (cheaply) convert plastic into gold, the price of gold on the world market would plummet overnight. (I would still be a rich man though )

The interesting things in this discussion is, it doesn't rely on who says the truth to win.

1. In real world, supply and demand determine the price (not the actual value), and that is the case only if a government practise "free market economy" generally. In country that practise control-economy, it is another story.

2. In the issue of terrain transforming Vs rigid terrain system, the terrain type is in fact just an attribute one apply to a tile, just like a color you apply on a map. Color or terrain type are abstract attributes, or more precisely they only exist in human logic... so they don't have any economy value. It is the tile and the map, the subjects (that the attributes are being applied) that actually have value.

Lone Wolf is damn good in argueing... he manage to talk me to agree that gold and plastic are the "attributes" as in 2., but in fact they are not, they are the tile and map which I call them subjects. It is the bottle shape that is the attribute.
He nearly beat me on that.

Btw, I am glad to involve in discussion like this... and I am sorry I have to go now. (before it is too late)

 

[Lone Wolf]

It is the tile and the map, the subjects (that the attributes are being applied) that actually have value.

Change the objections against easy terraforming to making the value of the tiles more uniform, then.

I wonder would an "Extreme Diplomacy" mode, which allows the leaders to battle it out themselves if everything else fails make the game more "joyful"...