I just want CIV 5 to be a joyful game

[Shurdus]

(And I don't mean a Shurdus-style not coming back. Really, I have better things to do with my time.)

You should try it, this thread went from annoying to hilarious once I stopped caring about the content and started focussing on the creative ways hclass and other use to defend their points of view. I thought it was funny back then so I jumped back in for the fun, I phased out on the topic of this thread long ago.

 

[CHEESE!]

This thread has lost all direction.

 

[Shurdus]

It had no direction, it has had a 1 star rating since forever.

 

[Linoran]

What really scares me about this thread is that I think people like the OP (no offence) write more suggestions to Firaxis than people that want to preserve the core structure of the Civ series, as they are more satisfied with the game.

It's not often you see people sending letters to congratulate on a perfect product? It's more likely that people who doesn't like certain aspects of the game writes and "complains", begging for changes. Of course there's suggestions that will enhance the gameplay, but there's also suggestions that will dumb it down and make it a less rewarding experience which, I think, this thread is an example of.

 

[smachy]

I definitely will feel like a cheap , if I need to resort to technical/legal term to scare away my opponents or to win a dispute, so, the below is not my argument, it is a plain description to show how I understand your description above:

That is "stack overflow" in bad program codes. It normally only takes place at the smartest part of a program which attempts to reuse codes to its maximize extend.

I'm not knowledgeable enough in programming to understand how you understand it, so I cannot comment on it. I would be happy to learn a little more about it if you wish to explain more. But Ad infinitum is Latin phrase commonly used in English like ad nauseum, or at least it is supposed to be common knowledge. It means "to infinity." An easy example is 1, 2, 3 ad infinitum. Which means 1, 2, 3, and it continues to infinity. Just in case, ad nauseum means "to (the point of) sickness." An example would be, Hitler in civ has been discussed ad nauseum already.

I have this crystal ball, a real magical one which let me see the future of outcomes. (only outcomes). It is what make me so sure about my requests. (See my very first post, just in case you have forgotten). Now, this crystal is apple of my eyes... well, I mean you have to convince me, prove it to me very very hard that - there is a must for me to send you my ball, right?

No, that's enough as a proof. You say what you say because a crystal ball tells you. If I wanted the crystal ball, then I have to give a reason, but I do not see any reason for that. I trust the crystal ball.

 

[hclass]

Hi,

and here is another more constructive opinion of mine:

The worst element in CIV is - the way diplomacy is implemented in the game.
I can't believe it, how can smart people like SID agree to implement diplomacy in CIV in the way it was in CIV3 and 4.

It force you to routinely switch your focus from the field (that is the CIV map) to another screen with all the funny looking leader icons to do something real childish.

If you don't, you will be lost some advantages relatively.
I mean why can't Firaxis come up with something easier to carry out diplomatic activity...
Sort of a pop up window (occupying only a portion of screen), let player decide diplomatically by choosing from a selection list?

Diplomacy has never been aligned well in CIV since Civ3. (Civ2 is OK, since there wasn't really diplomacy in it)

 

[Ahriman]

Of all the possible complaints to make about diplomacy, the fact that it occurs in a separate screen has to be the weirdest.

Besides, they've already shown us some of the leader screen pictures, so its clear that you won't get what you want.

 

[hclass]

Of all the possible complaints to make about diplomacy, the fact that it occurs in a separate screen has to be the weirdest.

Besides, they've already shown us some of the leader screen pictures, so its clear that you won't get what you want.

The way diplomacy is implemented is just like in a Chess tournament, a player is told that he can also try to win the game by trying to bribe the judge to declare he is the winner without actually beating his opponent.

Imagine, during his opponent's turn, a player though still can opt to focus on the chess board, but he must risk that in his next turn, his opponent might successfully bribe the judge.

I foresee, one day CIV game will be ruined by this kind of childish element.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Ah, so you find diplomacy childish. The beautiful thing about turn based strategy is that you can focus on production then science then diplomacy then military.

 

[Ahriman]

The way diplomacy is implemented is just like in a Chess tournament, a player is told that he can also try to win the game by trying to bribe the judge to declare he is the winner without actually beating his opponent.

Imagine, during his opponent's turn, a player though still can opt to focus on the chess board, but he must risk that in his next turn, his opponent might successfully bribe the judge.

Your tendency to make points through inaccurate analogy instead of argument or logic is frustrating in the extreme, as is your tendency to label things "childish" without any kind of argument. "Childish" seems to mean "thing you don't like".

Also, your "bribing the judge" analogy has nothing to do with your complaint about having a separate screen.

If what you mean is that the diplomacy is set up so that you can use diplomacy strategically to increase your power then, duh, that's kinda the idea. This is a strategy game.

 

[Set]

It force you to routinely switch your focus from the field (that is the CIV map) to another screen with all the funny looking leader icons to do something real childish.

In the real world diplomacy and politics in general are childish

 

[hclass]

Ah, so you find diplomacy childish.

No, I am not.
I am talking about how childish "the way it is being implemented" in CIV.

Btw:
Don't ask me what is a better way, what I would like to suggest to Firaxis is, if they can't figure out a good way, then may be it is a good idea to simply discard all diplomacy features.

The beautiful thing about turn based strategy is that you can focus on production then science then diplomacy then military.

The beautiful thing about turn based strategy is: whatever you want, it always take 1 or more turns to be done.

So anything that desn't really need "doing", which can be achieved by pure "talking", is really hard to be accomdated into a turn based game like CIV.
i.e. I think it is very unlikely that "talking" features can be aligned nicely as part of CIV.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Dude, diplomacy is one of the most important things in this type of game. You can't just remove it. Besides they have already adressed it's childishness in ciV. Also since when was multiplying the strength of the units not childish?

 

[hclass]

Dude, diplomacy is one of the most important things in this type of game.

There wasn't even a diplomacy screen in CIV2, so I think you are a bit exaggerate.

You can't just remove it.

But Firaxis can.
I suppose by doing so, they can save more than 90% of their time in the so called effort of improving CIV's AI.

Besides they have already adressed it's childishness in ciV.

I repeat, I never find diplomacy itself childish. I am talking about the way it is implemented... or is intergrated (with brute-force way) into CIV game which does not seems to be its appropriate host.

Also since when was multiplying the strength of the units not childish?

Since the time where Civ, You and I co-exist in this world.
Don't be childish, can't you see that the "strength of strong unit" (like a tank) can always be measured as multiple of "strength of weaker unit" (like a axeman)... it all depends on what multiplicand you use, right?

What is so wrong with multiplying strength of units?

 

[Ahriman]

Note that you haven't actually said what you don't like about diplomacy, except that it happens in a separate screen.

what is so wrong with multiplying strength of units?

What he means is your preference for tanks to be strength 40,000 instead of 40. You know, so the REWARDS feel more EXTREME.
Which *is* childish.

 

[hclass]

Note that you haven't actually said what you don't like about diplomacy, except that it happens in a separate screen.



What he means is your preference for tanks to be strength 40,000 instead of 40. You know, so the REWARDS feel more EXTREME.
Which *is* childish.

I remember that EXTREME strenth is not what I want intially (I want big reward, remember?), though I did say something like "I like to see more zeroes" and "more powerful unit is better still"... I suppose it is human nature to easily impressed by something BIG... ummm, I like BIG thing, I really do.

What is the difference in quality between someone who prefer 3 more zeroes and someone who prefer 3 less zeroes?

-------------------
Oh, I almost forget...

I do not "Don't like Diplomacy", I don't like it to be brute force into a game such as CIV.

I know it is hard for you to understand even after I have a good analog in my previous post...
Let me try again:
"Diplomacy" routinely force one (altough indirectly) to siwtch focus from the map, this is very disturbing. And this alone, shows it is not suitable to be in CIV unless Firaxis can come up with a different Diplomacy mechanic.

 

[Ahriman]

What is the difference in quality between someone who prefer 3 more zeroes and someone who prefer 3 less zeroes?

The difference is that the one who wants more zeroes, just for there own sake, without any reason other than EXTREME, is childish.

"Diplomacy" routinely force one (altough indirectly) to siwtch focus from the map, this is very disturbing

.
How is it disturbing? Its a large improvement on what we had before. Every game that has ever had a good diplomatic system (eg GalCiv) has done so through a separate diplomacy screen.

To have a good diplomacy system, it has to have a lot of different options, and you have to be able to weigh them against each other. Its just not possible to display this much data without taking up a lot of screen space, and so its easier to do in a separate screen.

And this alone, shows it is not suitable to be in CIV

Because you alone think it is disturbing? Really?

 

[Quintillus]

It had no direction, it has had a 1 star rating since forever.

Is it not a bit sad that on a site called CivFanatics, a thread ostensibly about Civ5 being a joyful game has a 1-star "terrible" rating?

Seems more than a little ironic to me.

 

[ThunderGod]

Am very happy about the new game coming, unhappy that certain civs are either excluded or included (especially when they didn't historically start until the latter half of the last millenium).. Wont start a troll post, because I am mainly happy about the new features that I am drooling over and can't wait for

TG
(am ranting in my mind though...LMFAO)

 

[hclass]

The difference is that the one who wants more zeroes, just for there own sake, without any reason other than EXTREME, is childish.

You forget to discribe the other party who want less zeroes, so I still don't see the difference...

How is it disturbing? Its a large improvement on what we had before. Every game that has ever had a good diplomatic system (eg GalCiv) has done so through a separate diplomacy screen.

To have a good diplomacy system, it has to have a lot of different options, and you have to be able to weigh them against each other. Its just not possible to display this much data without taking up a lot of screen space, and so its easier to do in a separate screen.

You and I should therefore shout together to Firaxis, let it be in another game, say: DplCiv!
Which does not even need a map. The game has only the diplomacy screen as its main playground, everything can be achieved by talking. I will agree to have a few dozen of additional sub-screens to accomodate thousand and thousand of diplomatic options. I believe we all will love to play something like:
Sid Meier's Lord of the Diplomacy

Are you a talker? Oh, ye! You definitely will like it.