Interview with Jon Shafer on Gamasutra

[r_rolo1]

Actually he hasn't, you're just saying that because it fits in with your own deep antipathy to *any* representation of religion in the game. The fact is that Diplomacy-not Religion-was faulty in Civ4 for 3 reasons: Bonuses & penalties were visible-making them exploitable; Bonuses & penalties were too arbitrary & long lasting; diplomatic bonuses & penalties impacted AI decisions, but had no impact on Human decision making. To me, blaming the problems with Civ4 diplomacy on religion is completely backwards-like saying that cancer is the result of losing weight.

Aussie.

a) being visible or not does not make them less or more exploitable, just less acessible. Any decent Civ I player knows how to deduct the hidden modifiers the game has with ease, so why would it be diferent if religion had hidden modifiers?

b) I would say too big modifiers in general. +8 just because you are running the same religion ( Izzy ) is just too much

c)Well, in Civ IV you get the "fight brothers in faith" unhappiness and the AP mischiefs doing that, but they are generally too weak. I agree that could get a tone up.

Oh and about my point in that previous post, since I'm being misunderstood :

The only way that things go like Shaefer says is when you have the complete control of the religious board: sending a missionary and get a BFF will only work in Civ IV if the civ has no religion at all, will never found one, will never get other and will never run FR. That pretty much implies that you founded all the religions and that you have full control of where the religions will auto spread ( in other words, you can avoid that the other religions will autospread, a thing you can only do if the holy city of those religions is not connected to the trade route network ). It also means that you win the game before FR is avaliable to the AI, pre S. Paya and pre-liberalism then. And to add, you would need AI that care about religion, since some simply don't care as much as that.

Said in other words, that can only conceivally happen in low/very low levels . Hence my comment that Shaefer saying looked a newb one ....

Which is exactly what bothers me too. *Yes* there were problems with Civ4 diplomacy, but they could be fixed without returning the game back to the irrational AI of Civ3. I always said that-visible or not-your diplomatic standing with other civs should be tied to happiness. If you attack someone you *should* like (because they've come to your aid, share the same religion as you etc etc) then you should pay for that with a happiness penalty. That would have been a better fix for putting AI & Human players on an equal footing than simply making the AI cut-throat & irrational (as I fear they might have done in Civ5!)

Aussie.

I'm part of the minority of players that think that better global AI behaviour is not the same as the sum of better individual AI behaviour That is my main objection to make the AI more cut-throat than in Civ IV ( I already pointed out that in the discussion in better AI mod for BtS if the Ai should had been done more cut-throat ): that will surely be good for the AI that get in top, but will surely not be good for the AI who let their corpses on the way . But I can definitely agree with putting the Ai and the human playing the same game ...

Back on the Civ V board, i really don't see space in there for long term cooperation from what I read sofar , atleast besides the joint ventures in tech ( but those are not exactly long lasting ) . The AI will have to be cut-throat or will be a ragged doll in the hands of the human player, but that, paradoxically, will make every one of them extremely vulnerable to the human player as well, because it removes the danger of a minimally coordinated response to a human attack on a AI and the possibility of a war going out of hand by someone coming to help the underdog ( like it happens so much in Civ IV ), both things that count a lot in diplo terms. If you know that no one is coming to help your target and that they will even come to eat a part of the cake, and if it happens every time, what stops you of eating them one by one like a caterpillar eats leaves ?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

a) being visible or not does not make them less or more exploitable, just less acessible. Any decent Civ I player knows how to deduct the hidden modifiers the game has with ease, so why would it be diferent if religion had hidden modifiers?

b) I would say too big modifiers in general. +8 just because you are running the same religion ( Izzy ) is just too much

c)Well, in Civ IV you get the "fight brothers in faith" unhappiness and the AP mischiefs doing that, but they are generally too weak. I agree that could get a tone up.

Sorry, my point was that the lack of hidden modifiers & the size & duration of said modifiers was a problem with the *whole* diplomacy system-& religion was merely a symptom of a bigger malaise. It isn't just about making the religious bonuses & penalties hidden, *all* the modifiers should be hidden (like adopting similar government types, having close borders, rendering aid in the past etc etc) from the player's view. Similarly, all the benefits & penalties should be shorter lived, & some of the bonuses & penalties needed to be seriously toned down-undying hatred should be earned from frequent bad behaviour, not a single incident.
As I said, though, the best way to put an AI civilization on an equal footing with the human player is actually to encourage greater role-play by the human player, via a boosted public relations (happiness) system.

Aussie.

 

[cephalo]

The way religion was handled in Civ was not particularly realistic. Some people may feel it was a good game mechanic, but Civ5 is a different game. It has to be that way. Civ4 was one of the best games ever but I've been there done that. I wanna new game. Let's see what they have.

EDIT: More concisely, keep an open mind. Nobody wants to rob themselves of the chance to enjoy this new game that we've been waiting on all this time.

 

[beestar]

It isn't just about making the religious bonuses & penalties hidden, *all* the modifiers should be hidden (like adopting similar government types, having close borders, rendering aid in the past etc etc) from the player's view.

I think Civ 5 is heading in this direction.

What this means at the highly competitive CivFanatics level, though, is that people will spend months running tests and code-diving to determine exactly what the underlying math is. The knowledge will get out there, even if it will be more painful to obtain. And those that know the knowledge will be more successful than those who don't.

Me, I find all that work tedious and not very fun, but I have a lot of respect for those researchers and their hard earned advantages.

 

[The Tollan]

"Are you bringing back John Adams' music for the modern period of history?

JS: We are not.

Argh.

JS: [laughs]

This is a concern.

I always thought that was a really inspired inclusion, setting the modern metropolises against modern minimalist art music.

Correct and well put.

JS: Yeah. In Civ IV, the music was based on era, so as you would progress through the game, the music would change.

This was a good idea and was implemented superbly in Civ IV.

But it was all Western-based. So, if you were playing China, you got John Adams, just the same as if you were playing United States.

A fair point but doesn't justify removing John Adam's pieces. Bring back the lost treasure via expansions so players don't have to always import the files into the game.

Something that we've done this time around instead is to have a different musical collection for each region. We have four regions: the Middle East and Africa, Asia, Europe, and Mesoamerica. Each of those regions has a different musical score for peace and for war.

Ok, this is a good idea but should be possible to have some of John Adam's works in the European music section. Why not?

So, we don't have modern age music, but we do think this is pretty cool, especially when you go to war and it gets all dark and moody and the drums start beating. I think it pulls you in a lot more than if you have, you know, John Adams as you're nuking people.

Non-era specific music is fine but how about keeping some era specific music around too?

 

[Aleenik]

I like the Civ games, but I'm not that good at them. Anyways, I don't think being the same religion as someone else in Civ4 was always a friend forever type of thing. I remember plenty of times when I had good relations with a civilization and shared the same religion as that civilization... I still got attacked many times.

 

[nikolekan]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

I find it offensive that you are labeling orthodox Christianity as wrong. Its just different

That Orwellian tolerance will get ya every time.I never said that orthodox Christianity is wrong, just that I dont personally believe in it. I dont think those who believe in things like the trinity or the virgin birth will not enter the kingdom of G-d. Theres room for everyone All paths lead to G-d.

Orwellian?? Wrong generation


Norm A. Tive

 

[gunsnroses]

What this means at the highly competitive CivFanatics level, though, is that people will spend months running tests and code-diving to determine exactly what the underlying math is. The knowledge will get out there, even if it will be more painful to obtain. And those that know the knowledge will be more successful than those who don't.

I understand why people do this and it sure helps to win at the highest levels but doesn't it take all the fun and unexpectedness out of the game?

 

[r_rolo1]

No, because there is a little thing called random number generator