Is "Flexibility" a (or the) missing link in Civ 5?

[da_Vinci]

I played a little of each today ... the current BOTM and the TSG2 from the Game of the Month Forum. I noticed a difference that may explain some of the complaints about play feeling like hitting end turn and doing very little.

Civ IV just feels more nimble, more flexible. Like a sleek ship that responds rapidly to a change of the rudder. Civ V feels plodding, inflexible, like trying to maneuver a barge.

In Civ IV, I can decide that for a bit, I want to build troops to go to war. Go into each city, move the pop to hammer tiles, and suddenly those cities shift into meaningful production. Apply the whip if I need to.

Then, with enough troops in hand, I change over to commerce, push the slider to science, even build science, and the empire is quicky on a different tack. I find that I have little adjustments to make, that matter, in most cities on most turns. Perhaps the one thing that always requires managment is keeping science output at the max.

Civ V empires don't seem to be adjustable in the same way. Changing science output is pretty gradual. Often changing city focus from food to production to gold doesn't seem to change the outputs much. The only way to get troops fast is to buy them.

Humans are said to be the most adaptable species. No surprise then that we prefer nimble and adapatable situations to more static ones.

Now it is possible that there are ways to be nimble in Civ V and I just don't know them yet. I would be interested in whether people agree with this idea, and think this explains some of what folks mean when they say the game is uninteresting over time.

dV

 

[Biz_]

flexibility is missing and it's intentional. everything about civ5 is about long-term strategic planning. social policies, maintenance cost for buildings, high production times, low yields, global happiness, lack of slaving, etc.

civ4 feels more user friendly because it extremely forgiving when the user screws up. if something goes bad... just slave. you will always make more cities (up to a point) because the disadvantages are so tiny. add to all this the fact that attacking needs way more strength than defending and you have a huge cushion to absorb any errors you make.

in civ5 miscalculating and choosing to make that library/barracks/coliseum instead of a unit or two can cost you the game. in civ4 that will rarely happen

 

[Osetjka]

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, but one most responsive to change."

I agree with the your analogy of steering a barge. Or perhaps the Titanic. I think all of this relates back to the design forced down on us by the developers. That you need to envision, plan and contemplate your winning strategy before you settle your first city.

Of course, how the AI could go from -100 GPT to +400 on the following turn is anyone's guess.

 

[Andoo]

I once had a city that included about 6to7 hills, a few flood plains and most of other tiles a mix of grasslands, plains, and forests. I mined all the hills, TPed the non-river iles, lumbermilled the forests and farmed the river tiles. It could produce 80+hammers when switched to production, 90+ commerce when focused and so on. Something TP spam can't accomplish I think.

 

[Osetjka]

flexibility is missing and it's intentional. everything about civ5 is about long-term strategic planning. social policies, maintenance cost for buildings, high production times, low yields, global happiness, lack of slaving, etc.

civ4 feels more user friendly because it extremely forgiving when the user screws up. if something goes bad... just slave. you will always make more cities (up to a point) because the disadvantages are so tiny. add to all this the fact that attacking needs way more strength than defending and you have a huge cushion to absorb any errors you make.

in civ5 miscalculating and choosing to make that library/barracks/coliseum instead of a unit or two can cost you the game. in civ4 that will rarely happen

To me the way ciV punishes the player for these early mistakes and miscalculations seems more suited for RTS games, where play time is generally much shorter and decisions the player has to make are more tactical in nature. Indeed, that may have been the aim from the very beginning: to bring more "mainstream" players into the fold.

In my opinion this simply doesn't work for a game that may last for hours (or days) and may span the whole of human history. You shouldn't be haunted and be undermined for the rest of the game (even more so than cIV) for doing that one thing instead of the other, with no way of adapting to the changing environment.

 

[Psyringe]

flexibility is missing and it's intentional. everything about civ5 is about long-term strategic planning. social policies, maintenance cost for buildings, high production times, low yields, global happiness, lack of slaving, etc.

I agree that this was probably a design goal. I don't think it's a particularly good one, but it's in line with the currently prevalent line of thinking in game design: Remove challenges. Remove anything that could possibly frustrate the player. Let the player commit to one style of play early, then set him on greased rails while he's cruising towards the goal.

This is nothing new. In role-playing games this trend can be observed for a while now. What's new is that this trend is now suddenly touted as increasing the strategic challenge because you have to commit to one style of play earlier and have less opportunities (if any at all) to change that in the course of the game.

Personally I'm pretty sad about that. I like to be flexible - not because it's easier (it isn't , see below), but I think that finding flexible, creative solutions for problems, and planning strategies that allow for several opportunities later on, is one of the most enjoyable elements of strategy games. That's also why I enjoy strong random events or un-balanced resource distributions in my games. I don't want a playing field that's utterly predictable. I don't want a game that tries to be "fair" in its distribution of starting positions and ends up guaranteeing the player that everything he needs will be in reach. I want to be surprised, challenged be unforeseen events and developments, I want to have to find creative ways to overcome any disadvantages I may have. I want to have a wide array of options available at any point of play and I want a game that requires such a multitude of options due to the variety of problems it gives me to solve.

And here I agree with the OP. Civ5 goes entirely into a different direction. Civ5 wants the player to commit to a strategy early and stick to it, it limits the player's options, and it limits the strength and variety of unforeseen developments and events to not frustrate the player for having taken the wrong choice 200 turns earlier. It may be more enjoyable for players who like to start with a fixed game plan (from a strategy guide, or one they developed themselves) and derive their enjoyment from seeing it unfold as planned. But for those of us who enjoy games that challenge their flexibility, and their ability to evaluate many options in complex situations, it's a step backwards.

 

[tom2050]

To me the way ciV punishes the player for these early mistakes and miscalculations seems more suited for RTS games, where play time is generally much shorter and decisions the player has to make are more tactical in nature. Indeed, that may have been the aim from the very beginning: to bring more "mainstream" players into the fold.

In my opinion this simply doesn't work for a game that may last for hours (or days) and may span the whole of human history. You shouldn't be haunted and be undermined for the rest of the game (even more so than cIV) for doing that one thing instead of the other, with no way of adapting to the changing environment.

Well said, there is a huge difference between punishing a player for the rest of the game for a bad choice made in the beginning; compared to having to make thought out decisions. The 2 are different, and 5 goes the punish route; while limiting overall strategies and options compared to other civ titles.

 

[Thormodr]

Very well said. Shafer 5 is certainly less flexible and a lot more restrictive.

It's swim lane Civ. Get in your lane and don't deviate from it for the rest of the game.

Most players though like choices and options. They like to adapt to changing play situations. You could certainly do that in cIV in spades.

Sadly, Firaxis seems to think that the game should be watered down for the mass market. Shafer 5 is designed for the casual gamer. They don't want the kids to have to think too hard or get frustrated. They want everything glaringly obvious for them. Hand holding and groups hugs for the little kids.
If we don't take a stand now and refuse to buy Shafer 5 DLC and expansions then it's just going to get worse.

 

[Biz_]

Punishment is necessary because there needs to be a way to reward the player who takes advantage of your mistake. The game is about seeing whether you can stand the test of time, and defeat has to be a real possibility. This existed in previous games, but the margin of error needed to be much greater.

But the game is far from being on autopilot and challenge-free. Civ4 is actually the prime example of that description. Empire development focusing on getting a lot of cities and making the cities grow to huge sizes was the move to make for nearly every victory. Your only choice was the ratio of mines to cottages. Just because you had to do a few things every turn to micromanage this doesn't mean it was meaningful - it was just routine.

Figuring out which victory to go for is the easy part because there isn't really a right or wrong answer (well there might be... ). Figuring out how to do it is the essence of a strategy game. There might be fewer stats you have to worry about in civ5, but the actual strategic planning required is far greater because of the inflexibility and the need to look ahead.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you Biz. The magic of the previous Civ iterations was to be a different game to each different player. If you talked to a 100 different players you could get several different ways to play it. You would also get several different certified strategies that garanteed victory. That's complexity.
In civ V, you play like a RTS, like other guy just said above. It feels like a RTS, where the important is the arrival, the win, not the journey. In civ games, I like the journey way better than the end. I almost never complete my games. That's not what I'm after in Civ. Is the sensation of building and managing my civ. Almost a RPG. I'm feeling I'm in a roller coaster, but I don't feel special cause I chose the "strategy" of getting on roller coaster A instead of B, specially cause the trip is very dull and it looks I'm riding it just to get to the "You finished it! Congrats!" banner.

 

[zonk]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you Biz. The magic of the previous Civ iterations was to be a different game to each different player. If you talked to a 100 different players you could get several different ways to play it. You would also get several different certified strategies that garanteed victory. That's complexity.
In civ V, you play like a RTS, like other guy just said above. It feels like a RTS, where the important is the arrival, the win, not the journey. In civ games, I like the journey way better than the end. I almost never complete my games. That's not what I'm after in Civ. Is the sensation of building and managing my civ. Almost a RPG. I'm feeling I'm in a roller coaster, but I don't feel special cause I chose the "strategy" of getting on roller coaster A instead of B, specially cause the trip is very dull and it looks I'm riding it just to get to the "You finished it! Congrats!" banner.

This.

I would say the challenge isn't so much a challenge once you understand the synergies, either. Want to win a pink science (cultural) victory? You'll learn pretty quickly to keep your empire small and not go ala carte on the SPs. Want to win a blue science (spaceship) victory? You'll learn pretty quickly not to waste your time on culture.

The mutual exclusivity of game paths is simply too severe -- you get punished for going off course.

This is really the problem with the lead design by someone really good at Civilization -- he wants us to see the game through his eyes, where everything is done to optimize the victory path... problem is -- I'm with DPB -- I played Civilization for the journey, not to "win". The journey is almost entirely absent in V.

 

[DaveGold]

I agree with the original post. In CIV IV you not only had to make the right decision, you also had to make the right decision at the right time.

 

[Vellis]

Re:Victory Conditions.

Not sure where it's coming from, but the idea that Civ IV offered amazing versatility in winning strategies vs. Civ V is just wrong. In both games you have the strategy for Cultural victories (culture) and then other victories (production/science).

In Civ IV if you wanted a cultural victory you had to start planning for it early then push for it the whole game, otherwise you wouldn't have time. In Civ V if you want a cultural victory you have to plan for it early by staying small and then push culture the whole game, otherwise you won't have time. I don't ever recall thinking "I'll go for a culture victory" in Civ IV without planning for it the whole game.

For everything else you get the win by expanding and tech-ing. A military and science victory require the same things in both games, science and production. It's easy to swap from one to the other, and in most games where you get a science victory you could have easily gotten a military victory as well.

Same deal with a diplomatic victory. Leverage the size and tech of your empire to buy/liberate city states or buy/vassal opponents' civs votes. Diplomatic victories are poorly designed in Civ V (go go city state popularity contest), but that's beside the point. You can switch to a diplomatic strategy at any point with enough resources in either game.

Civ IV is definitely a better game than Civ V as they each exist now, but the bias people show sometimes is silly =p

 

[Becephalus]

Personally I hated the "flexibility" of Civ. It insulated you from having consequences from your decisions. But I generally hate sliders in almost any game. It is a stupid an unrealistic mechanic, which would be fine, but it also is bad for gameplay and encourages micromanagement.

CHanging things like science output should be gradual. I am not sure why anyone though going 80/10/10, 0/90/10, 50/50/10 on successive turns was fun sensible or a good way to manage your science output...

Ditto the paradox games. In every case you have a slider the game would be better served by another system. THey seem to be slowly coming to that realization. I think eventually most games will abandon sliders.

 

[City Raider]

I agree about the lack of flexibility.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you Biz. The magic of the previous Civ iterations was to be a different game to each different player. If you talked to a 100 different players you could get several different ways to play it. You would also get several different certified strategies that garanteed victory. That's complexity.
In civ V, you play like a RTS, like other guy just said above. It feels like a RTS, where the important is the arrival, the win, not the journey. In civ games, I like the journey way better than the end. I almost never complete my games. That's not what I'm after in Civ. Is the sensation of building and managing my civ. Almost a RPG. I'm feeling I'm in a roller coaster, but I don't feel special cause I chose the "strategy" of getting on roller coaster A instead of B, specially cause the trip is very dull and it looks I'm riding it just to get to the "You finished it! Congrats!" banner.

This.

I like to build up cities and grow my empire, and was playing one game as India. Met Egypt on Turn 5, he insulted me on Turn 6 (the mistaken for barbarian one) and from then on I knew war was inevitable. Ugh. My intent for the game was to have 2-3 cities total for the whole game, try for culture win and see if I could build a size 40-50 city, played with no city states. As soon as I placed my second city, about 5 turns later (turn 60 or so of the game) he declares on me and ruins the game. Just frustrating. I chose a culture Civ, the small empire social policies, even found a culture ruin bonus, planned for culture, now I get trapped into a war game. I razed his cities for pissing me off then quit.

How does this not set the precedent that every game you play you should just kill your neighbors first.

Re:Victory Conditions.

Not sure where it's coming from, but the idea that Civ IV offered amazing versatility in winning strategies vs. Civ V is just wrong. In both games you have the strategy for Cultural victories (culture) and then other victories (production/science).

In Civ IV if you wanted a cultural victory you had to start planning for it early then push for it the whole game, otherwise you wouldn't have time. In Civ V if you want a cultural victory you have to plan for it early by staying small and then push culture the whole game, otherwise you won't have time. I don't ever recall thinking "I'll go for a culture victory" in Civ IV without planning for it the whole game.

That's not really true. I often had games where I wouldn't decide on a culture win until very late 1600-1700's AD or so. You could do that b/c you can adjust the culture slider or turn production directly into culture for heavy hammered cities. As long as you had commerce (which you needed all game regardless of strat) you could decide, Science for space win, Culture for Culture win. You didn't need to pick in the BCs. You could let the game play out and decide later.

By contrast I was playing another Civ 5 game this weekend, had an awesome spot to Rex out, build some cities, rushed Bismark (razed 1 city, kept his capital), but before I knew it I had about 7-8 cities with land for another 7-8 more. My intent was to go for a space victory before I started the game. But I thought maybe I could switch to culture and win the game sooner since I have plenty of room/time to build up strong cities. The problem here was I only had like 1-2 Social Policies cause I added quite a few cities early, only built a couple monuments. To me it would have been very hard to now stop expanding (no one else on the continent) and just leave empty land and unclaimed happy resources to try for a Culture win. It was already in the ADs at this point. I essentially was locked into a space win. I never built Stonehenge or Oracle so I really felt Culture would have been a stretch to even do, and I'd probably be leaving a bunch of empty land for someone else to eventually claim.
It would have been nice to have the option to switch or heck try for BOTH wins and then take which ever comes first, or to fill out my land mass with 16 cities THEN decide how I wnat to try and win. You could do this in Civ 4, you didn't need to decide all that early, certainly not before 1000 AD or the Liberalism race. And as I said before I'd often decide very late.

 

[Osetjka]

Punishment is necessary because there needs to be a way to reward the player who takes advantage of your mistake. The game is about seeing whether you can stand the test of time, and defeat has to be a real possibility. This existed in previous games, but the margin of error needed to be much greater.

So in ciV it boils down to who has the most optimized or by luck has chosen the right strategy early on, like in an RTS game? How can you build a civilization that stand the test of time (sorry for using that phrase again ) when your peaceful nation gets wiped out early in game by one of the psycho-sociopath AI (all of them are)?

Following Thormodr's example of swim lane civ, it's akin to seeing a shark (!!!) at some point on your lane, coming from a mile away. Yet you're powerless to do anything other than follow your current path.

Early and mid-game feels more like you're bracing for that Zerg rush in a 15-minute match rather than building an empire through the ages. To those who pointed out that cIV involves little choice and boils down to the ratio of mines and towns, it has been shown that ICS and TP spam is alive and well in ciV, perhaps even more so than in cIV.

 

[da_Vinci]

To those who pointed out that cIV involves little choice and boils down to the ratio of mines and towns, it has been shown that ICS and TP spam is alive and well in ciV, perhaps even more so than in cIV.

Well, there is also the specialist economy, the espionage economy, and I have heard reference to the hammer economy in Civ IV.

Even if Civ IV was just the ratio of mines to towns, which one you picked made a noticable difference. Where you put a city made a noticeable difference.

In Civ V, it seems like tile improvements have marginal benefits (because the tile bonus is small for the improvement, and the food surpluses are smaller, so those foodless mines are a growth killer), and it feels that city placement is more forgiving with the three hex range and bought tiles. It is like choice A works about as well as choice B for seveal things in V, where there were meaningful differences in IV.

So not just an issue of flexibility, but one of variety ... the choices I make have an impact on the game, because I choose between things that produce meaningful differences in IV.

Then we get the three controlled cities + infinite puppets model in V ... and the game becomes AI vs. Human Autopilot. All I need to do is move the troops. Pick a tech now and then, pick a policy now and then. Am I playing, or is the game just about playing itself?

I guess one can keep busy with Sulla's ISCS (Infinite Small City Sprawl), riding herd on them to avoid growth ... but not much flexibility or variety in that.

Now, maybe I just need to get better at using the tools that Civ V provides, and then I will find the variety and flexibility. But I still wonder if by design, IV let me steer +/- 90 degrees, and V will only let me steer +/- 10 degrees?

dV

 

[TheLean]

Interesting. The OP dislikes CIV 5 for the same reason I like it. In civ5, you cant turn your kingdom around on a few turns from science or commerce to a military machine, you have to lay your plans well in advance. If the AI was better this would be a really challenging game (Now it doesnt really matter since the AI always attacks you and then gets its behind handed to it)

 

[eviltypeguy]

I once had a city that included about 6to7 hills, a few flood plains and most of other tiles a mix of grasslands, plains, and forests. I mined all the hills, TPed the non-river iles, lumbermilled the forests and farmed the river tiles. It could produce 80+hammers when switched to production, 90+ commerce when focused and so on. Something TP spam can't accomplish I think.

For some reason, every time someone takes about TP spam, all I can think about is rolls of white paper flung over tree branches

 

[ChaplainDMK]

I played a little of each today ... the current BOTM and the TSG2 from the Game of the Month Forum. I noticed a difference that may explain some of the complaints about play feeling like hitting end turn and doing very little.

Civ IV just feels more nimble, more flexible. Like a sleek ship that responds rapidly to a change of the rudder. Civ V feels plodding, inflexible, like trying to maneuver a barge.

In Civ IV, I can decide that for a bit, I want to build troops to go to war. Go into each city, move the pop to hammer tiles, and suddenly those cities shift into meaningful production. Apply the whip if I need to.

Then, with enough troops in hand, I change over to commerce, push the slider to science, even build science, and the empire is quicky on a different tack. I find that I have little adjustments to make, that matter, in most cities on most turns. Perhaps the one thing that always requires managment is keeping science output at the max.

Civ V empires don't seem to be adjustable in the same way. Changing science output is pretty gradual. Often changing city focus from food to production to gold doesn't seem to change the outputs much. The only way to get troops fast is to buy them.

Humans are said to be the most adaptable species. No surprise then that we prefer nimble and adapatable situations to more static ones.

Now it is possible that there are ways to be nimble in Civ V and I just don't know them yet. I would be interested in whether people agree with this idea, and think this explains some of what folks mean when they say the game is uninteresting over time.

dV

Dunno, i can get serious changes in my cities when I switch their focus.
Like in a game i just finished, i was going for cultural victory, i got 3 cities and when the Siamese were overexpanding towards me, i decided to aid england that was at war with them by giving them troops. I switched my cities over to full production and in most cases i halved the production times on evreything and started churning out a Mechenized infantry each 4 turns in my biggest city and 6 in my other 2.
I threw some 20 or so Mechenized Infantry and 3 battleships to england, which gave me alot of time, and realy streached the Siamese.