Au contraire, I would be disturbed if this thread had a high rating.
I just want CIV 5 to be a joyful game
- Thread starter hclass
- Start date
Au contraire, I would be disturbed if this thread had a high rating.
Hi,
I think I have talked too much of what is wrong with CIV4... until many in this forum dislike every single cell of mine.
Let's instead talk about what is good in CIV3 and 4:
Among all the 1/3 added features, the best is the introduction of the concept of territory (which is culture dependent and in CIV5 it is also money dependent ... that really is a good idea).
But Firaxis again quickly spoil something so good, by implementing a rule that you can not step into opponent's territory without declaring war unless you have an opened border agreement... it seems I am right: anything involve diplomacy in CIV is disgusting...
I am dreaming of something like, I only get a warning when I cross not that much into others's territory. The AI will react to my lingering at the border, they send defending troops to uphold their territory while pronouncing their objection etc... something like that...
I like the possibility to be attacked supprisingly by AI troops and I also like to be able to sneak deep into their territory and give them a big blow.
I think, discarding "Open border" feature (if not discarding all diplomatic features) is a good idea! Don't you agree?
I think I have talked too much of what is wrong with CIV4... until many in this forum dislike every single cell of mine.
Let's instead talk about what is good in CIV3 and 4:
Among all the 1/3 added features, the best is the introduction of the concept of territory (which is culture dependent and in CIV5 it is also money dependent ... that really is a good idea).
But Firaxis again quickly spoil something so good, by implementing a rule that you can not step into opponent's territory without declaring war unless you have an opened border agreement... it seems I am right: anything involve diplomacy in CIV is disgusting...
I am dreaming of something like, I only get a warning when I cross not that much into others's territory. The AI will react to my lingering at the border, they send defending troops to uphold their territory while pronouncing their objection etc... something like that...
I like the possibility to be attacked supprisingly by AI troops and I also like to be able to sneak deep into their territory and give them a big blow.
I think, discarding "Open border" feature (if not discarding all diplomatic features) is a good idea! Don't you agree?
LegionSteve
Motörhead
We don't dislike you. I have very different opinions on what the game should be like though, but that's ok
Wouldn't that require something to pop up to inform you of their objection, something kind of like a... diplomacy screen?
Yes, a pop up (take partial of the screen) will be a good idea.
I would imagine, diplomatic events occur closely related with whatever takes place on the map.
In fact, it does not matter even the pop up is fullscreen. My point is, it is aligned closely to current activities on the map and should not in any way force one to remember visit the diplomacy screen for something. I can't remember how many time I have forgotten to visit the diplomacy screen only after I hit the next turn button. That kind of design is seriously flawed and very unpleasing.
i.e. Current way of diplomacy make me feel like I have to take care of progress in 2 diffenrent arenas. My main concentration is of course on the CIV map and in addition I must remember to take care of whatever happen there on the diplomacy screen (every single turn, just in case I will miss something)...
May be something like the below will make diplomacy better:
1. When I successfully occupy a new resource, AI will approach me for trade
2. When I am in the mid of invading opponent's city, he/she approch me for a peace talk...
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
Civ 2 doesn't have a diplomacy screen? Would you like to enlighten me as to the screen is where you make propossals such as peace treaties, alliances, technology trades, money trades, unit trades, declarations of war, ceasfires, calls for help in a war, demand tribute, demand withdraw from your territory, and give tribute? I personaly think that civ wouldn't be worth playing without diplomacy which has been a core part of 4X games since civ 1 and star lords. I also really like open borders, though I think it would be better if it would simply warn you that this could start a war when you enter someone else's territory without open borders, which will usally result in a war.
I think it is important to have common term when we are discussing, otherwise we might end up talking about different things.
To me diplomacy screen (as in Civ4) is a center (fullscreen) where one can carry out diplomatic activity. It is a screen where Civ player explicitly and manually bring up, to do something, just like when we need to bring up an advisor screen for info.
Whereas, a pop up diplomatic window (be it full or partial of a fullscreen), must be clearly linked to something (a unit, building or object) or an event (taking place) on the map. What I want to emphasize is "link to something/some events on the map". It is always brought up by the game system automatically due to certain event on the map. (So there won't be such thing as I need to press Fn key to bring up diplomacy screen)
To me, if a diplomatic feature can not be linked to the map, it has to be discarded. (No matter how nice it sounds like)
Btw, for open/close borders, I don't really find it is a bad feature. I just don't like the way they are implemented in Civ4. I want:
1. A pop up diplomatic window to ask me whether I want to open/close border triggered by some event on the screen (e.g. opponent's unit is approching my border)
2. If I purposely step into a close border of my enemy, I want them to actually detect that themselve (say one of their unit sees my army and they won't if I have stealth units), not something like the game system will always forces me to declare war or give up crossing the border.
For trading (whatever item being traded), I don't find it a proper element of diplomacy. It should be treated like normal activity on the map, like I send a trade unit to knock on the door of someone and the game system automatically bring up the trade window.
I really find making trade part of diplomacy is one of the most stupid decision Firaxis has made.
Ahriman
Tyrant
We used to have this, where to negotiate you had to have diplomat units and caravans, and had to manually create embassies and use diplomats to talk to other factions.
It was an annoying, boring, micromanagement mess.
Being able to talk to other factions any time is far superior.
There is no good gameplay reason for tying diplomatic relations to on-map military unit interactions. Fixing this was a great improvement, and we're not going back.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
I agree with Ahriman.
your the god of bad luck or something right?
your the god of bad luck or something right?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Persian name for the Zoroastrian Spirit/God of Destruction.
Then Firaxis should improve on that basic to make it interesting. Trade units at least can fit naturally into the game. (Btw, I never say I want embassies, you are the one still remember it)
Believe me, I know how important it is to have a super feel (I always know).
I suppose you mean the Diplomacy screen as in Civ3 and 4, which is like a toilet outside the hall where a Chess tournament is in progress -- a place where you may fool the stupid jugde, attempt to bribe him with minimum promise...(see my analog in previous post, in case you have forgotten)
Thus, it is stupid, disturbing and a definite spoiler to the game.
I understand it is hard for you to see the reasons I have put forward in my previous post. Don't rush, take you time...
Moderator Action: this thread will only remain open if everyone refrains from trolling
Hi,
Currently, I am playing a game called "Defense Grid". A USD9.90 game from STEAM
It is a tower defense game. I have completed the game (craked copy given by friend) much earlier before I bought it from STEAM. I bought the game for 2 reason:
1) I enjoy climbing STEAM's leaderboard list, very very much.
2) I want to support the developer for their hard work.
and I definitely will buy (immediately) any expansion the developer will put forward in the future.
"Defense Grid" has something that I have found in CIV2, which I missed so much.
The impulsive feel, the eagerness to win the same (saved) game better and better...
I don't know eaxctly what in (DG or CIV2) that causes me to be so impulsive in replaying...
I felt like I have lost half of "that kind of feel" when I turn to Civ3 from Civ2... and I almost don't find "that kind of feel" at all when playing CIV4.
Before Defense Gird, I was always thinking, could it be... I am old enough (it has been such a long time since I play CIV2) that I can't have that kind of feel back any more? No matter what computer game I play...
I mean, could it be... Civ4 is actually much better than Civ2 in every aspect and the actual reason I don't find Civ4 good (or better than Civ2) is due to the fact that ... I am too old?
Well, until my friend introduce me this game, Defense Grid. I got the answer, I know my age is not the problem, something is wrong with the recent Civ game.
About the feel that I have in both Defense Grid and Civ2 (their similarity):
Well, lossing a game is never something I need to worry - the game is designed so that I always win (quite easily). But the interesting thing is, whether I can win with gold medal instead of just a sliver one. Even after I have won with a gold medal (defense grid has more than 100 different levels to offer each can be won with either gold or silver medal), I can further challenge myself by climbing the game's leaderboard.
i.e. both game are not designed to make "winning the game" a challenge (anyone will win), but they always give player a strong feel of
he/she can win much better... if he/she tries again with an improved strategy or use a new tactic...
I undertand the good motivation to design new Civ game with the idea: One has to play a balanced game, play equally good in most of the aspects (army, building, diplomacy, tech research etc.). One have to come up with the most optimal decision in almost every activity CIV has to offer... but... isn't that means there is only a single strategy in playing the game? and thus... cause me to loss the desire to replay any saved game?
Well, I could be wrong with my opinion that, all that I have requested (mostly Civ2 features) in the beginning of this thread is suppose to bring back that kind of specific feel that I always have when I was playing Civ2 and now playing Defense grid.
I hope Civ5 will too.
Currently, I am playing a game called "Defense Grid". A USD9.90 game from STEAM
It is a tower defense game. I have completed the game (craked copy given by friend) much earlier before I bought it from STEAM. I bought the game for 2 reason:
1) I enjoy climbing STEAM's leaderboard list, very very much.
2) I want to support the developer for their hard work.
and I definitely will buy (immediately) any expansion the developer will put forward in the future.
"Defense Grid" has something that I have found in CIV2, which I missed so much.
The impulsive feel, the eagerness to win the same (saved) game better and better...
I don't know eaxctly what in (DG or CIV2) that causes me to be so impulsive in replaying...
I felt like I have lost half of "that kind of feel" when I turn to Civ3 from Civ2... and I almost don't find "that kind of feel" at all when playing CIV4.
Before Defense Gird, I was always thinking, could it be... I am old enough (it has been such a long time since I play CIV2) that I can't have that kind of feel back any more? No matter what computer game I play...
I mean, could it be... Civ4 is actually much better than Civ2 in every aspect and the actual reason I don't find Civ4 good (or better than Civ2) is due to the fact that ... I am too old?
Well, until my friend introduce me this game, Defense Grid. I got the answer, I know my age is not the problem, something is wrong with the recent Civ game.
About the feel that I have in both Defense Grid and Civ2 (their similarity):
Well, lossing a game is never something I need to worry - the game is designed so that I always win (quite easily). But the interesting thing is, whether I can win with gold medal instead of just a sliver one. Even after I have won with a gold medal (defense grid has more than 100 different levels to offer each can be won with either gold or silver medal), I can further challenge myself by climbing the game's leaderboard.
i.e. both game are not designed to make "winning the game" a challenge (anyone will win), but they always give player a strong feel of
he/she can win much better... if he/she tries again with an improved strategy or use a new tactic...
I undertand the good motivation to design new Civ game with the idea: One has to play a balanced game, play equally good in most of the aspects (army, building, diplomacy, tech research etc.). One have to come up with the most optimal decision in almost every activity CIV has to offer... but... isn't that means there is only a single strategy in playing the game? and thus... cause me to loss the desire to replay any saved game?
Well, I could be wrong with my opinion that, all that I have requested (mostly Civ2 features) in the beginning of this thread is suppose to bring back that kind of specific feel that I always have when I was playing Civ2 and now playing Defense grid.
I hope Civ5 will too.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
And it's okay to feel that way
. Heck, some people various ways of approaching the game - I bet some like to open the Worldbuilder, place a Modern Armor next to the AI's starting units, kill them and revel in glory of victory, while some people are not satisfied until the mechanics make it possible to see stacks of rebels popping up everywhere, cities overthrowing your rule, civs you conquered respawning because you haven't build enough courthouses and various horror stuff like that. Some indeed like the "winning is never in doubt, perfecting your win is the point" games, while some want their AI to be as brutal to them as possible. I bet there're people who love the diplomacy aspect, perfecting the art of manipulating the AI, while some hate diplo in any form and play Free for All (every civ is at war with everyone) or Always War.I don't think that it's possible for a game to be objectively "better" then another. As mentioned, some people find the experience of blasting the AI's warriors with Modern Armor to be much more "better" and rewarding for them then anything else.
The problem is, Civ in general is a game that takes relatively longer to complete. It is not like an arcade game where each level takes you 5 to 10 minutes to come to an end (be it a success or failure). I mean, if new Civ version is geared towards "winning a game itself is a challenge", that is definitely a bad direction due to the nature of Civ (which always take relatively longer time to complete). New comers (unlike long-timers) will definitely get frustrated by the fact that the game take a long time to complete and yet is difficult to win... I think it only takes one or two failures to scare them away...
I always believe there is such thing as "unique spirit" in the original modal of Civ game based on Civ2, it is good that the developer is attempting to enhance newer version of Civ by discarding, changing and adding new elements to the game, but they should dye to uphold that "unique spirit" originally found in Civ2. The 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 formula is definitely a failure, I think it can only be applied when developing an expansion of certain Civ version, not a major new version.
I always believe there is such thing as "unique spirit" in the original modal of Civ game based on Civ2, it is good that the developer is attempting to enhance newer version of Civ by discarding, changing and adding new elements to the game, but they should dye to uphold that "unique spirit" originally found in Civ2. The 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 formula is definitely a failure, I think it can only be applied when developing an expansion of certain Civ version, not a major new version.
I actually used my (very moderate) modding skills and made my standard game speed (marathon) about three times slower. I only play one or two games a year and I want them to be really epic
From Civ2 to the last expansion pack of Civ4, I believe Firaxis has added more than 100 "No" like below:
1. No switch of production - a miracle is what you need to win all Wonders.
2. No cities spawning (Maintenance cost) - stop the no-brainer strategy of winning by quantity.
3. No infinite rail movement - remove the possibility to attack or being attacked suddenly
4. No tech trade (coming Civ5) - You can never slide tech research to 0% and still hope to gain new tech anymore
5. No stacks of military units (coming Civ5) - covering the whole maps is your only choice
6. Please continue to add your additional No here...
The above all have one common effect to Civ game, they disallow "Extreme" strategies (no Superman, Batman or Popeye the Sailor Man). With them, even at normal difficulty level, one need to play a balanced/optimal game. Which means the game (especially in Civ4) is geared in a direction that it seriously discourages emotional play (whichever way you prefer and to whatever extend you like) and calm and cold is all you need. To be more acute, you will need a calculator beside your mouse (you don't need one? sure because you only play easy levels).
In brief, you mustn't play Civ as a game instead you should work Civ like a serous business... this is what I felt when playing Civ4.
In Civ2, relatively, there is very little such "No" like those in the above list and hence it is up to you, whether you want to play extreme/emotional (no calculator needed is for sure) or to play very seriously (well punish yourslef for you have just done an exploit)
With all the added "No", no matter how decisive you are to be a warmonger or a culture maker or a great diplomat... whatever you want to be, it is only a dream... I mean the game won't let you actually practise your ambition (as fun as you wish). The game now only favours a single type of player, the one who distributes all effort well in every aspect (he/she who finds a calculator really helpful in playing Civ).
Well, I am not the designer of newer and newer Civ, but I know in all Civ versions there always are many types of victory (I think 7 or more in Civ4), which I intially assume that means I can play the game in many ways depends on the type of victory I prefer... but I was wrong, at least for Civ4, I can't play as happy warmonger or happy culture maker or happy diplomats or perfect wonder builder etc... there is only one right way to play it: NO EXTREME.
1. No switch of production - a miracle is what you need to win all Wonders.
2. No cities spawning (Maintenance cost) - stop the no-brainer strategy of winning by quantity.
3. No infinite rail movement - remove the possibility to attack or being attacked suddenly
4. No tech trade (coming Civ5) - You can never slide tech research to 0% and still hope to gain new tech anymore
5. No stacks of military units (coming Civ5) - covering the whole maps is your only choice
6. Please continue to add your additional No here...
The above all have one common effect to Civ game, they disallow "Extreme" strategies (no Superman, Batman or Popeye the Sailor Man). With them, even at normal difficulty level, one need to play a balanced/optimal game. Which means the game (especially in Civ4) is geared in a direction that it seriously discourages emotional play (whichever way you prefer and to whatever extend you like) and calm and cold is all you need. To be more acute, you will need a calculator beside your mouse (you don't need one? sure because you only play easy levels).
In brief, you mustn't play Civ as a game instead you should work Civ like a serous business... this is what I felt when playing Civ4.
In Civ2, relatively, there is very little such "No" like those in the above list and hence it is up to you, whether you want to play extreme/emotional (no calculator needed is for sure) or to play very seriously (well punish yourslef for you have just done an exploit)
With all the added "No", no matter how decisive you are to be a warmonger or a culture maker or a great diplomat... whatever you want to be, it is only a dream... I mean the game won't let you actually practise your ambition (as fun as you wish). The game now only favours a single type of player, the one who distributes all effort well in every aspect (he/she who finds a calculator really helpful in playing Civ).
Well, I am not the designer of newer and newer Civ, but I know in all Civ versions there always are many types of victory (I think 7 or more in Civ4), which I intially assume that means I can play the game in many ways depends on the type of victory I prefer... but I was wrong, at least for Civ4, I can't play as happy warmonger or happy culture maker or happy diplomats or perfect wonder builder etc... there is only one right way to play it: NO EXTREME.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
Good, I dislike easy "Extreme Strategies"
