I just want CIV 5 to be a joyful game

[The_J]

Now i really don't know anymore, what hclass is talking about, and what the purpose of it is .

 

[frekk]

To me, it means, each individual building (of structure or unit) go faster, the quantity and quality of everything get bigger and most importantly, the game won't end sooner.

Of course it will.

If you ramp up everything, then you increase the size of the gap between the strongest and weakest. The bigger the advantage enjoyed by the strongest, the faster the game ends. That's exactly why a faster speed setting in the game is just, well, everything ramped up - more production, more research, more rewards (proportionately). The gap grows greater, faster, thus the game ends more quickly.

And we certainly do NOT want the "quantity" of everything increased. Most of us are tired enough with moving hundreds of units about already - we want fewer, not more, for less micromanagement.

 

[Shurdus]

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)

To me you stopped making sense long ago, and I suspect you are into this discussion for the sake of arguing rather than discussing a valid topic. Ignoring this thread from now on.

 

[hclass]

hclass:
What is it you expect from this thread

I thought I have it clearly listed in my start off post...

Ok, ok, if you are still not sure, then let me put in another way:
I am expecting to be heard by someone from Firaxis... and hopefully he can accept my requests to make Civ5 better.

when all you do is nitpicking every little bit of people's grammar and logic rather than discussing anything in-depth?

I myself have bad grammar in all my posts... can't you find any?
(I am sorry, if I have not dug as deep as you wish.)

I really do not have any intention in nitpicking anything from anyone.
Let me take your example as mine:

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.

To me it is a matter of a glance in order to understand that simple kind of statement and its intention... you can't simply assume I don't understand because of the format I laid my reply, right?

It is obvious that the author want me to stop my quest of requesting instead go modding (which is something you should know I will never do if you have read one of my previous reply in this thread).
I just told him, what I see OK could be something agreed by many universally, even if there are quite a number of people do not agree with me here.

So put yourself in my shoes, what will you do? Or how are going to start off an in-depth discussion in response to that kind of statement?

hclass:
...
Why?

Why "Why?"?

 

[Afforess]

I want

1. to be able to start playing with a reveal map, I find that more strategic. I don't mind I am marked cheater in the score page. Just give it an option (no MOD please)
2. to be able to do terrain transforming and do it quite quickly and easily. e.g. I can flatten a hill/mountain in less than 10 turns, dig a lake out on plain in 3 turns etc.
3. grab a joyful reward when I capture an opponent's city. For example, there will be no loss of population, earn one or more opponent's tech, grab some gold etc. i.e. make capturing an opponent city a real pleasure instead of a something sick and stinck that I need to repair/ wait for recovery.
4. to be able to count the number of cities in my empire... this seems minor feature, but I have never seen a counter column in city management view of Civ3 and Civ4... I remember I stop playing CIV4 (the last CIV4 game I play) because I was frustrated by the fact that it is so hard to count the total number of cities I have built + conquered...

Btw, I don't mind AI players are given all the same joys as above.

One last thing, could it be possible that I am also given a BIG RED button name - the GOD button, where when I am really depressed, say when I know I got no hope in winning a conquest victory (even though I am ahead of all the AI opponents), pressing that button will let me win immediately... (again I don't mind I am marked winner of GOD button on the score page)... ah ha ha

...
...
...

I wish CIV5 will achive the ultimate philosophy of computer game (give its player lot of joyful experience), meaning when I am allowed to do something, I can DO it to the maximum extend, at will... which really make me HAPPY!... instead of many of the "you can't do this and you can't do that because those are considered exploits", so many stupid restrictions being used as a measure to claim Civ game is very challenging...

Civilization is a game, not a sandbox.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

So you're argument is that everybody likes terraforming...because only a few people in a tiny corner of the Internet disagree, while nobody yet agrees?

Clearly, hclass's ideas are representative of the general Civ community. Nevermind the fact that he thinks because he's too lazy to mod his ideas should be implemented into the basic game. Head, met desk.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I am expecting to be heard by someone from Firaxis... and hopefully he can accept my requests to make Civ5 better.

Your ideas would make Civ 5 Worse if they were applied to the standard game.

Some of them would be good as Options to the standard game (Revealed map, no "rebel activity"... both of which would be Horrible for the standard game)

Some of them might be interesting as options (terraforming) but would require firaxis to introduce a whole new system [and would be horrible in the standard game]. (so they will only be present in mods)

Some are just pointless (bigger/better rewards... either 1. this speeds up the game or 2. it is purely a "Graphics" effect)

 

[hclass]

Your ideas would make Civ 5 Worse if they were applied to the standard game.

Most of the features discussed in this thread:
1. Revealed map - CIV2 (player is marked Cheated)
2. No rebel in captured city - CIV2
3. Terraforming - Alpha Centuary (but not as speedy as I have suggested)
4. Rail unlimit move - Civ2 and Civ3 > Civ4 (limited moves)
5. Tech trade - Civ3 (enforced) > Civ4 (optional) > Civ5 (gone)
6. Wonder race - Civ2 > Civ3 > Civ4 (in order of easiness)
7. Reward - CIV2 > C3 > C4

Note: All 1) to 6) have been implemented in one or two earlier version of CIV game and removed in a latter.

If your conclusive statement as in the above quotes is absolutely TRUE, then that implies the game designer has always picked the right elements to be removed when creating a newer CIV. Or even more acute, he is always right!

But overall C4 isn't absolutely better than all its predecessors.
Note: As long as there are quite a number of people found either Civ3 or Civ2 (or even Civ1) is better than Civ4, your conclusion won't stand a test. If you still have doubt, you can simply give it a poll.

I want to point out just a single fact based on the list above:

Generally they all involve pushing CIV game towards a "more difficult to get something done" or "fewer reward" stage. (and personnally, I will prefer to replace the word difficult with unpleasing) That alone is an indicator of wrong doing. Why not you just forget about the above list and ask yourself,

If there is a long list of elements (whatever they are) in newer and newer version of a a game that only make its player harder and harder to do something and get fewer and fewer in return, is that a healthy sign for the development of a game?

I really wish I can have a chance to ask Sid Meier himself this question.


------------------------
In addition:
Because of my personnal taste, I don't really care about diplomatic and culture type of victories and is therefore do not really care of what Firaxis have changed in these two areas, otherwise, there could be more items to be added to my bitter list above.

 

[ori]

You are implying that those are the only changes between iterations of the game though if you say that saying that those changes were correct means saying that all changes done were correct.
I do not agree that any of these make it less rewarding to play - mostly since having some difficulty at achieving certain aims actually increases the reward of simply achieving that aim.

 

[hclass]

You are implying that those are the only changes between iterations of the game though if you say that saying that those changes were correct means saying that all changes done were correct.

I mean, wrt to those changes on the list.
My point is, it only take 1 mistake (someone did) in order to deny him as always right.
So, the designer must be ALL right wrt to those changes on the list, if the statement (as quoted by me in previous post) is to be absolutely conclusive.

I do not agree that any of these make it less rewarding to play - mostly since having some difficulty at achieving certain aims actually increases the reward of simply achieving that aim.

I am sorry I can't see the absolute relation between "eaisness/difficulty in quest" and "its reward"
If you feel good simply because you have done something hard and you feel better simply because you have done something harder, that is simply psycho satisfaction.
I am talking about reward in material or a real profit that can be quantified direct or indirectly.


-------------------------------------------

Ah! I read again my previous post and I now realize what is missing...
Please let me insert it here. The poll as mentioned in my previous post could be something like the below:

Section A
Which is the best CIV you have played:
1. Civ1
2. Civ2
3. Alpha centuary
4. Civ3
5. Civ4

Section B (optional)
Tick one or more of the below whichever is/are the reasons you do not select otherwise:
...
...
My list here (with the 7 items)
...
...

If there exist a single vote of non-Civ4 in section A with one/more ticked item(s) in Section B, that alone is enough to deny the game designer is always right!

(Sorry I could have been clearer right at the very beginning)

 

[Thormodr]

For your information it's Alpha Centauri. (Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri or SMAC for short.)

Terraforming is one thing that I liked in SMAC. That and the elevation differences.

 

[ori]

no one (apart from you ) claimed that the game designer is always right, not event the poster you quoted. However, many people disagree with some or all of your specific assertions about these specific changes.
But I'll give my opinion on these here:
Revealed map: there is (sort of) an option for this in Civ4 if you start in an era with the satellite technology known (and if you want it in ancient era starts its trivial to add it to one or all of the starting techs). Personally I find the starting exploration much more rewarding than knowing everything from the get go and I would have strong objections against a revealed map as the standard.
Rebels: are just one aspect of the way cities and culture work in Civ4 when compared to previous iterations - neither their existence nor their removal would really bother me - mostly because the implementation is only a rather minor deterrence from aggressive warfare. It does help keeping warmongers in check a tad though when compared to non-warring players, personally I think there could be other ways of doing this though. What I would not support is having one play style be so vastly more promising than another that its not feasible to do things any other way.
Terraforming: Don't really think it would fit in well with anything but a modern/futuristic era game and quite frankly that era needs work anyways - though I do not think that at that point terraforming has any more or less of an effect than the bonus yields they implemented for certain improvements and/or techs. I don't think I would like a game were terraforming on a large scale would be possible in medieval times. Alpha Centauri really doesn't compare with the time frame depicted in the Civ games here - so while I like it in SMAC I wouldn't in most of the time frame of Civ
Rail unlimited moves: really mostly breaks the way military and especially defense should work imho - shuffling units around instantaneously within your own empire just takes any strategic meaning out of unit placement. I actually am very fond of this limitation (though one can argue about the exact nature of this limit).
Tech trading: can be fun can be exploitable - really depends on the way the AI conducts such trades, I am neither for nor against the removal of it. Either way there can be good reasons for it - and really needs to be seen in context of how the whole game works out.
Wonder Race: not sure what you mean with ease: if you mean that its more difficult to win the race in Civ4 than previously than I have to say its actually a rather nice feature that you have to actually take a risk (of not succeeding) in order to gain a reward - now of course the precise nature of that risk can and should be up to discussion - though I do not feel that its all that hard to build any specific wonder in Civ4 if you really plan on building it.
Reward: don't really understand what you mean by this - I don't think that specific rewards for ingame achievements have overall been reduced all that much or at all between Civ3 and Civ4 - and I do feel that this is mostly a subjective judgement. I don't know Civ2 well enough to judge this.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I actually think that the way Civ4 handles city capture needs fixing, because the cities you capture post-Macemen are swamped in your opponent's culture - a problem which in most cases can be solved only by annihilating your opponent. It's not really a matter of low reward, rather a matter of discouraging limited wars and encouraging complete annihilation, which isn't fun - I'd prefer for the limited wars to be profitable, too.

 

[frekk]

I actually think that the way Civ4 handles city capture needs fixing, because the cities you capture post-Macemen are swamped in your opponent's culture - a problem which in most cases can be solved only by annihilating your opponent.

Imo, that's a problem with the culture system, not with the way cities are captured. I don't think capture should really generate some change in culture right away.

Also ... there have been cases, especially when cultures are quite distant (and thus no cultural influence) where there was either replacement of the original population (eg Australia, Canada, USA, etc), or, the colony eventually got too out of control to govern anymore and the colonial power was eventually forced to abandoned it (eg Latin America, all of Africa and the Middle East and Asia).

It's easily solved by granting independance and creating a vassal state/colony.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's easily solved by granting independance and creating a vassal state/colony.

Vassal states are badly implemented also. Firaxis placed too much in the "vassal" bag ("proper" vassal, dependent state, puppet government, (liberated?) colony).

I'd define resettlement colonies as settling the land with Settlers, while dealing with minor "barbarian" tribes.

 

[frekk]

Vassal states are badly implemented also. Firaxis placed too much in the "vassal" bag ("proper" vassal, dependent state, puppet government, (liberated?) colony).

I don't know that a multiplicity of categories would really be much of an improvement ...

And, resettlement is already possible with settlers. But (as in the case of the US) even one's own populace can come unglued if the cultural gap widens far enough.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't know that a multiplicity of categories would really be much of an improvement ...

Maybe, but as now, the vassal mechanics are implemented rather badly. I refer you to TheMeInTeam's ramblings for details.

 

[hclass]

Revealed map: ... Personally I find the starting exploration much more rewarding than knowing everything from the get go and I would have strong objections against a revealed map as the standard.

So it is good to be an option ... and an option is very different from doing it with something like world builder. (both WB and options exist in CIV4, that prove they are for different use)

Rebels: ... It does help keeping warmongers in check a tad though when compared to non-warring players, personally I think there could be other ways of doing this though. What I would not support is having one play style be so vastly more promising than another that its not feasible to do things any other way.

Simply put, playing a warmonger style does deserve same encouragement as playing in other styles.

Terraforming: Don't really think it would fit in well with anything but a modern/futuristic era game and quite frankly that era needs work anyways - though I do not think that at that point terraforming has any more or less of an effect than the bonus yields they implemented for certain improvements and/or techs. I don't think I would like a game were terraforming on a large scale would be possible in medieval times. Alpha Centauri really doesn't compare with the time frame depicted in the Civ games here - so while I like it in SMAC I wouldn't in most of the time frame of Civ

It tasted good in Alpha Centauri. Alpha Centauri is different from CIV only because there are only abstract symbolic icons for eveything (my feel)

And I have my own principle not to involve in any CIV discussion that is either:
1. Civ progress must go in accordant to history (whatever extend)
or
2. Civ elements must be homologous to real world (whatever extend)
related.
So no comment on how terraforming will work in era base.

Rail unlimited moves: really mostly breaks the way military and especially defense should work ... I actually am very fond of this limitation (though one can argue about the exact nature of this limit).

I don't want to argue about this. Just felt a great loss of the game, it used to have this great feature in the past.

Tech trading: ...

I am dying to request for its removal in pre-CIV4 release discussion. I remember that was a real heavy debate until I am banned by moderators and since then left this forum until recently. I now confirm I was right at that time.

Wonder Race: not sure what you mean with ease:

This is big issue (that can really be discussed in-depth).
Simply put, a wonder race to me is not just to win in several wonders that I like, I mean all wonders (small wonders are exclusive).
I was so excited in playing the race until there come the limitation of you can NOT switch production of wonder... WTH ! (I am sorry, I can't help)
Why don't they just forget about the limitation, I really don't mind they mark me as cheater in winning all Wonders...

Reward: don't really understand what you mean by this

The fault is not yours, it is mine.
I am unable to further elaborate my eagerness to see GREAT things happen in the game in a macro level. (may be except for Victory the only big reward in Civ that can be directly quantified by one's score)

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't want to argue about this. Just felt a great loss of the game, it used to have this great feature in the past.

Didn't feel that great to me. Limited rail movement allows for some fun tactics that'd be impossible with it being unlimited (like attacking the soft belly of your enemy anti-Maginot line style).

 

[ori]

So it is good to be an option ... and an option is very different from doing it with something like world builder. (both WB and options exist in CIV4, that prove they are for different use)

I absolutely have no problem with it as an option - though at some point options need to be limited simply in order to have a workable options screen, so not everything can be an easily accessible option.

Simply put, playing a warmonger style does deserve same encouragement as playing in other styles.

frankly a warmonger style has so much more reward than any other style already that I do not see how it needs to further encouraged. While there is some rubberband in place to prevent very excessive early expansion, warmongering still usually gets superior results than mostly builder type playstyles.

It tasted good in Alpha Centauri. Alpha Centauri is different from CIV only because there are only abstract symbolic icons for eveything (my feel)

And I have my own principle not to involve in any CIV discussion that is either:
1. Civ progress must go in accordant to history (whatever extend)
or
2. Civ elements must be homologous to real world (whatever extend)
related.
So no comment on how terraforming will work in era base.

I personally do think that if you depict something as being roughly in a specific era than you should not too obviously depart from that. Much as I wouldn't want airplanes in an ancient era setting. If you wish to break that I think that the fact that they allow you to use worldbuilder ingame to change plots to whatever you like gives you the option in Civ4. As for Civ5: they did state that a worldbuilder would be available outside the game - so we'll have to see how it works out. As of now in Civ4 it is very much an option and only one (actually two - since it asks you if you really want it) click(s) away from the game.

This is big issue (that can really be discussed in-depth).
Simply put, a wonder race to me is not just to win in several wonders that I like, I mean all wonders (small wonders are exclusive).
I was so excited in playing the race until there come the limitation of you can NOT switch production of wonder... WTH ! (I am sorry, I can't help)
Why don't they just forget about the limitation, I really don't mind they mark me as cheater in winning all Wonders...

switching and transferring production has little to do with getting all wonders - since you pretty much only want to transfer production at a point where you lost the race for one. I disagree that its necessary to be able to get all wonders - but that is really personal preference. It would be easy to do if the one distributed the wonders in civ4 in a way that the times when they can be build hardly if ever overlap - but I don't think that is necessary.