Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Öjevind Lång, Oct 23, 2010.
That's a pretty good idea.
I dislike this idea, the game would become a huge huge land war then. People would still REX (through conquering). In fact, in some of my games my cities have good spacing even though I'm churning out settlers as fast as humanly possible. I'm just not "honeycombing". I'd much rather have something implemented that makes people say "building this next city might actually hurt my economy until I get new techs / buildings up".
Oh SURE, link him your thread and not mine!
This is an important point, I think. Hard limits like "4 spaces between cities" should be considered as an absolutely last resort. Preferably, the game should be structured such that you can do whatever you like, and have the consequences of building to close together keep you from doing so. One of the things that makes these games fun is situations like having a pair of cities 2 spaces apart normally be disastrous for both cities, except in some odd combination where the exploitation of some resource, or some crucial strategic value (like controlling a strait) balances it out. A hard limit doesn't give the option to shoot yourself in the foot, and any time options are limited, it's one step closer to a depressing "greased rails to victory" game.
While I agree with that for the most part, didn't CivIV have a hard rule as to how close cities could be?
I was refering to civ games in general, just at the last sentence specified ciV. And you are right, I should have said that in ciV this window of opportunity is non existant other than short or weak as I did.
Population adding science would be the main factor as you stated, also an invading army which finds no true counter and easily obliterates the enemy without practically any loses but instead making such army even stronger through additional promotions. Having more tech to reach first to the unwonderous wonders and not needing to replace units lost makes the biggie also more prone to get them or focus on other building as well. So these three factors, uber overpowered military, tech through population, together with how happiness works make for a great ICS situation. It is fair to realize now that any concious attempt to limit ICS will probably need to address these three as the whole problem.
Yes, and so does Civ5. But it's low enough that it doesn't really hurt your decision making too much. If they allowed me to plant cities closer in Civ4, I don't know how many times I would. In contrast in Civ5, if they let me, I'd probably place cities a step closer, in fact if I had the Maritimes up and buildings for specialists, I'd probably place a city on near every tile.
You mean this one? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=382812
Nah, I was just trying to bug Rolo . That thread's old and I probably disagree with it (though the selling of happiness buildings makes this strat really really easy to pull off).
Ahriman's thread "A Core Set of Balance Changes" (11th page, http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=388179&page=11) contains a lot of my thoughts on the topic. It's not enough though as I said here. Happiness buildings also need to be altered.
just a quick post to say im a fan of the new system no slider
makes more logical sense that one tunr you can divert your entire economy one way or the other
makes more strategic sense that you have to plan ahead
adds to value of currency. Wealth has long been overlooked in civ
my 2 pence stated!
I really dislike the fact that I cannot change the tech rate when I want.
If I realise I have happiness issues, instead of upping the slider, I must check every city and build/buy colosseums everywhere needed. To me it's a chore.
I feel I have no control over science. I just have to grow a lot of population, and the only way to concentrate on tech is through building or research agreements. I feel like a whole part of the game has been removed, to be honest. If I managed to micromanage my cities I could increase the tech slider and get more tech, now I have to micromanage cities and the consequences will be long term, but negligible when compared to the output of research agreements (not to talk of maritime city states).
I keep reading this kind of opinions and I figure if people realize what does the slider fundamentally signifies in the game. Just indulge me for some lines. How shall I put it:
Tactics & Strategy
As I always saw it the slider represents a government means to abruptly invest into some needing aspect of your empire, this makes sense and it is a realistic approach, as governments do need to lean expenses into social welfare, sanitation & health, scientific development, culture, even espionage sometimes to adjust their political platform and/or upcoming and sudden situations during their office. This kind of adjustment made "for the moment" comes into the sphere of tactical gameplay. cIV is by far a much more tactical game than ciV, it has several mayor tactical features to account this aspect of the game: slider, civics, random events (to name the major ones); the only feature in which this situation could be inverted is combat, due to care positioning and more complex unit movement, etc, nevertheless combat is potentially more tactical in V as it stands today because... well no need to go any deeper into AI here.
On the other hand we have the sphere of strategic decisions, decisions with medium/long term repercussions that need planing and involve pretty high opportunity costs. ciV has a lot of strategic choices but very little tactical aspects. CSs and specially SPs (two mainly strategic features) add a lot of strategy to the game compared to cIV. Then again a lot of other features adding strategy had been removed (espionage, religion, health, you name it..); though this is off topic here.
Consider this, all the strategic choices to run your economy remain the same through IV into V: choosing the long term buildings, which allow both economic multipliers and specialists slots, improving the countryside (farms, cottages, workshops, windmills, etc), wonders pursuit. Even changing specialists within a turn, the tactical aspect of a specialist economy, remains (though it was much more powerful in IV due to caste system and no maintenance costs from buildings). But the commerce tactical counterpart, the slider & base commerce system, is gone. this is what has been lost with the slider, nothing more, nothing less.
You mean you have a problem that you have to plan ahead to play the game well?
Well, Italians generally seem to. Just look at the other posts by Italians here - and the way they manage their country.
Moderator Action: Infraction for Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I have no problem beating Civ V on Deity, thank you, and I don't feel I even have to plan much to achieve that.
I have a problem with having to plan ahead and then not have to ever adjust my plans because there's never a single reason why I should deviate from my initial plan.
Civ V almost feels like it plays by itself, except for the military part.
I like long term planning. But being unable to adapt is something I dislike. see Clausewitz: "Never engage the same enemy for too long or he will adapt to your tactics". In Civ V you just can't change. You pick a strategy at the start, and if you picked rock and your opponent picked paper, then you're doomed as you can no longer change. It's not dynamic and to me not much fun.
Right now, the fun I have in Civ V is to try to see how I can win despite restrictingg myself. It's a twisted puzzle game, not really a strategy game.
The slider was a great way of doing macroeconomic tasks while at the same time allowing you to custom tailor the macroeconomic decisions of each city.
More complex micro managment isn't neccesarly better.
People need to see when complexity of decision making and the process of implementing those complex decisions are both good and bad. Complexity isn't synonymous with good.
I really can´t get this "plan ahead" thing.
Imagine that you have a job that pays you 1000$. You spent 250 on food, 250 on rent and utilities, 250 on entertainment and 250 with taxes. Now imagine that you can´t change the proportion (no sliders) and suddenly the price of food goes up. Now you pay 300 for food.
Since you can´t change where you spent your money you:
a) get another job. (find another income in game)
b)use your savings(plan ahead)
c)go barter with the people responsible for the other expenses (change focus inside cities)
But you just can´t spent less in entertainment to compensate for the rising price of food.
Now go up some levels and see if this scenario makes sense in a goverment over 6000 changing years. It doesn´t to me and is not realistic in a way that actually makes gameplay worse and not fun. (IMO)
It depends somewhat on how many years a turn is. A modern country would have trouble changing its focus 100% in a year, but an ancient regime probably would not have trouble changing its focus over a decade or two.
Well, I am playing a game where I just go to the end of the Classical Era. I have done that, but I keep building all of this science +142 a turn. I don't need science, so how do I stop my empire from building it, and put some of that energy back into my economy? I sitting here wondering, why are they still building science, that should be alot less than what it is. So the sliders used to take care of this, and this game can be a pain when you lose happiness in your empire. Everyone starts declaring war on you, because they know your units fight at a serious disadvantage. I am thinking of starting to play a new game. If not I am going to annex any puppet cities, and burn every city all the way to my main cities, of which I have about 6. Then I am going to pillage as much as I can around where those cities were. Then expand slowly from there.
Separate names with a comma.