1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is Civilization forever dead?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by jjkrause84, May 12, 2016.

  1. stiiknafuulia

    stiiknafuulia King

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    603
    Maybe it's more to do with the difference in combat mechanics (stack vs. 1upt), now that I think more about it. But even if we disregard that, imo there must be enough 'stuff' present so that the game feels strategic. I almost always played on a world map in Civ IV, and founded dozens of cities just to give it that epic feel that I wanted. I wanted to take over the world! :king::mwaha: In Civ V that's very hard to do without using mods (which can often have other elements included that you wouldn't really care for).

    I also forgot to mention the different 'economies' that existed in Civ IV. You could opt to grow your cottages over many centuries, which made you weak production-wise in the early game, but a financial powerhouse later on; or you could go with a specialist economy, which offered rapid science growth and good production at the expense of a not-so-amazing late game. Even a hybrid approach where you used specialists first and switched to cottages later on with the appropriate techs discovered was possible. Nothing in the vein of this strategic decision exists in Civ V. You'll just spam farms and food caravans since pop = science. And every 30 turns you get to manually renew all your luxury trade deals. Yay...

    EDIT: With the district system in Civ VI, there's a lot of potential for different forms of economies, assuming they don't dumb down the mechanic for the benefit of the clueless masses. I have very low expectations here, so I guess I can only be pleasantly surprised...

    I do miss that. Even in Civ IV I lamented that we had less cities and smaller maps than in Civ III. Civ V took it way too much in the 'less is more' direction, imo -- to the point where there's hardly anything left. As for getting bogged down with 30 units, that is a symptom of the terrible 1upt system. You could have 300 units in a single stack and move them all with a single click across the whole map (since go-to orders actually worked in Civ IV). *Sigh* I miss the days when I was an emperor instead of a traffic cop! :aargh::hammer2:

    Never said you couldn't. I hate micromanagement as well, and often just clicked at random when my cities asked what to build in the late game of Civ III and IV. But that is really a fault of the interface and not of the scale of the game imo. (Civ IV had some kind of queue feature for building stuff, but I never used it, iirc. I guess by the time I discovered it, I was too ingrained in my old habits... :twitch:)

    Starcraft is a tactical game as least as much as it is strategic, as far as I understand it (never did care for real-time strategies). But yes, you can have a deeply strategic game with few well-balanced elements (chess is an even better example). But the scale is not a detriment to strategy either (cf. the EU series), and without the sweeping scale of the old Civs, I feel like I'm managing a municipal office instead of a world-spanning empire. It's about the strategic feel or atmosphere as much as about the actual mechanics (important as they are).
    It does to me though. As I said before, with a good interface even 10,000 units are a breeze to manage. Ofc with the promotions and such, individual units should still matter some, so the scale must be toned down drastically from rl proportions. Civ is not meant to be a simulation, but I'd prefer it to contain as much realism as possible without interfering with the fun of the gameplay experience.
    To me, that includes running huge empires with many cities. As I said, ymmv.
     
  2. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    Can anyone explain what the term "strategy" means in the sense that it can be present or lacking in a Civ game? I'm not really following.
     
  3. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I am hoping that Civ VI will be an instant classic and that the Lower Mainlanders can have a Civ VI LAN party/get together or something like that. :D

    As far as Jon Shafer goes, I have forgiven him. Life is too short to bear grudges and I still think it's just as much 2K games fault. In fact, I supported Jon Shafer in his upcoming game "At the Gates." I look forward to that game, as well.

    Still don't think that Civilization 5 with all it's trappings is worth playing but Civilization 5 plus VBP (Vox Populi) is because they address some of the core flaws. When it comes out, I may purchase the expansions when there is a Steam sale. Speaking of Steam, I am toying around with the idea of buying a Steam machine specifically to play Civ. :D

    Anyway, thank you for the encouragement and the olive branch. :)
     
  4. RPG

    RPG King

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Cambridge
    I wonder if the new graphics & new engine were decided upon so they could specifically work on steam machines.
     
  5. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    there's nothing special about steam machines that would require specific graphics
     
  6. Biz_

    Biz_ Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    482
    it's basically about how much the game rewards the ability to plan ahead

    civ is a game about random maps and hidden information, so ideally the path to victory should be different every time.

    you shouldn't just be able to memorize a build order and then go through the motions of executing it because that isn't strategic.

    no matter how much firaxis screws civ up, it's really hard for the multiplayer mode not to have strategy in it
    but a lot of single-player civ games don't require strategy because the AI is not a worthy opponent. if you can win the game no matter what decisions you make, your decisions don't matter
     
  7. bison21

    bison21 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    221
    Fair enough. I mean I obviously disagree again with the idea that fundamental mechanics euqal fundamental wrongs but I think we can settle on disagreeing here. I will certainly be interested to see what both of us make of Civ6, since we seem to have the opposite stance on Civ4 and 5.
     
  8. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    For sure. Agree to disagree. That's not a problem.

    However, we both want Civ VI to be excellent and that we can agree on. :D
     
  9. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    Thanks. Civ 5 clearly involves strategy then. It may be an easier game than Civ IV, but one can definitely lose if you don't plan ahead. I'm not sure how having a prescribed recipe developed by someone who uses strategy proves the game is not strategic, but I haven't seen a 100% guaranteed win algorithm for Civ anyway.

    Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd be interested to see if there is such an algorithm that can be guaranteed to win a Civ V deity game on a standard random map. Although even if there is one, it doesn't mean there's no strategy in Civ V since there are multiple win conditions that can be defined by the player anyway.
     
  10. Biz_

    Biz_ Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    482
    the last time I bothered playing against civ5's AI on diety, i just bought a bunch of city states and got a diplomatic victory
    the AIs had way more gold/production/science/military than me, but didn't do anything to even try and stop me. that particular game was not strategic
     
  11. Pengu

    Pengu Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    408
    The AI in Civ 5 is less challenging than any other civ game. Can't do war at all. Totally incompetent. Really poor at effectively do anything even if it has twice the cities, higher tech rate, you name it.

    And it takes forever to play the game as you have to move 1 unit at a time and the loading takes forever.

    Civ 6 just looks like a watered down version of that. I loved every damn game between 1-4, then they just decided to change the game into something slow, dumb and unchallenging.
     
  12. Acken

    Acken Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    Yeah well diplomatic victory makes many players laugh at how broken it is.
     
  13. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    I think diplomatic victory is the worst case, and sometimes I turned it off or decided not to go for it because it seems too easy . . but regardless of that, I'm not going to accept that the game you played was not strategic just because you say it didn't involve strategy in retrospect. To demonstrate it wasn't strategic, you have to actively decide to follow a prescribed algorithm and not use strategy beforehand because, being an experienced player, you'll automatically make strategic decisions based on your intuition ("This feels like a good time to build a new unit although I don't have a plan for it."). Even better, give your algorithm to a new player and see if they win. And have them play a dozen games to show that winning by that algorithm isn't just a fluke.
     
  14. Balkans

    Balkans Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    270
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BosniaAndHerzegovina
    ...and this is the issue i have with civ 5. It just feels like accumulation of everything and then you win. There is very little punishment of bad decisions once you know the game ... you just cruise through the events, accumulate stuff, take city or two and that's about it. All i want in civ 6 is that you are rewarded for your good decision and that you are basically screwed if that decision was bad ... not like in civ 5, do whatever, it doesn't really matter...
     
  15. Acken

    Acken Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,635
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    QC, Canada
    On the contrary Civ5 is full of noob traps. You cannot just randomly click and expect good results.

    Now if you're going to argue that once you know what to pick 99% of the games then it is a bit too easy. I'd agree with you.
     
  16. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    he is right actually, it's quite evident from the design that they wanted to protect the player from the feeling of "failure" as much as possible

    in civ4 you gotta manage your food, your commerce, your expansion, your army size

    in civ5 you just spam farms and build a few extra troops if you get attacked
     
  17. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, because they are in-character exploring their VCs. This is where the play-to-win arguments break down for me. People poo poo the diplomatic AI, and on the same breath decry AI play to win mechanics. Both those critiques are mutually exclusive in many cases with Civ5 since the easist way to get an AI to not like you is to pursue exactly their VC and or keep stealing their CS if they have a high city-state bias.

    I do agree that diplo-win is often easiest to attain as it's an economic VC, and on diety or immortal, it's perfectly valid to sit back and let the AI go to war against each other and even nudge things along that way, and accumulate your votes.

    But I encourage you to play diplo victory on Diety with Alexander, Venice and Austria in the mix. For good fun throw in Siam in the mix.
     
  18. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

    I wanna see that... post it on youtube.

    I have to agree with that line of thinking... I see many "expert" players cooking setups of their games and then claiming this very same argument, that it is "too easy" to win on Deity by just following the same "recipe" 99% of the time... I know that Deity, if anything, suffers from the "optimization problem" due to the huge bonuses the AI gets. The end result is that Deity is hugely constrained in what the player can do in order to even keep competitive, and thus, forces the player down a narrow path that obviously is almost unique given similar starting conditions. If you on top of that cook the setup, then it's even more constrained, and for me at least, utterly boring.

    Playing the CBP is a breeze because of the above; they worked a lot on the AI, both with original systems and to teach it to play the new systems of the mod, and it's just another story, to the point that they had to decrease starting bonuses to levels consistent with the BTS AI (after BetterAI/K-Mod), which says a lot.
     
  19. Westwall

    Westwall Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    1,336
    If you're just starting to build extra troops when the enemy is already rushing one of your cities with 10+ units, that city is gone.
     
  20. noto2

    noto2 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Ever since diplo victory was introduced in Civ3 I have disabled it.
     

Share This Page