Its funny how Firaxis keeps making new games that are in some ways a step back

[Question]

Petroleum as a satellite resource wouldnt even be a big deal if it was generally available, but we know from past experiences that resource distribution is very very bad.

Im in a game now where only two players out of 6 have access to petroleum. So 4 players will never be able to build advanced satellites.

The increased reliance on strategic resources for unique units really shows when the AI doesnt care what resources it has access to. When you are fighting against basic units in the late game because the AI went purity with no access to floatstone, it becomes a cakewalk. The designers didnt think this would be a problem apparently.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

The interface is a step back, and they clearly haven't learned that giving away free techs in the early game leads to a silly meta. Do they not remember the library scientist slot? The free great person from representation?

 

[darkskies]

And you cant make synthetic petroleum in the far future because...? Or a substitute?

Ive never had barbarians spawn on revealed tiless, seems like a bug...

They sure do if set to raging. Been so long since I played without raging I don't remember what that was like, but actually maybe this is a difference between the two settings

 

[Traejun]

Petroleum as a satellite resource wouldnt even be a big deal if it was generally available, but we know from past experiences that resource distribution is very very bad.

Im in a game now where only two players out of 6 have access to petroleum. So 4 players will never be able to build advanced satellites.

The issue isn't in this detail. This detail is elemental of what the real issue is. The point is that you're almost never going to HAVE TO build advanced satellites. You don't need to build half the things in the game. You just b-line for your chosen VC and lol your way to a win. Even on Apollo level, no advanced units are ever really necessary.

This is even true for Domination wins. Just finished a game. Small/Pangaea/Standard Pace. Never needed to get past CNDR's and Arty. Only near the end did I start to get access to better units, but I never needed to make any. I could ram out of the CNDR's and Arty so fast that it kept my war machine churning all the way to a win before t200.

At the current difficulty/AI levels, only bad luck or really stupid decisions can cause you to lose.

THAT is the problem with BE. It has nothing to do with resources.

Note: Resource issues are always an issue. They are supposed to be. Does every country on Earth have ready access to all resources on their own soil? Of course not. So, it shouldn't be that way here either. That's what trading/conquest is for.

 

[Question]

Thats not really a big deal unless you are playing competitive MP. Diplomatic victories were also pretty easy to achieve in singleplayer SMAC and so were economic victories as morgan.

But the dumb AI is definately holding the franchise back...

Trading is pointless when the AI doesnt want to trade, conquest is annoying when taking just one city makes everyone hate you and call you a warmonger.

 

[FangFur]

I have played Civ since its humble beginnings and adore Civ4 and Alpha Centauri, games which I often return to. So far I have enjoyed BE far more than I did Civ5. However its apparent that BE is incredibly sloppy and half arsed. There are so many features that are; not balanced (trade, victories), poorly executed (unit promotions, diplomacy, AI, combat), lazy (colours in the tech tree, wonders, end game recap) and pointless (specialists, favours). There are some very good ideas within the game and with more care and craft it could have been excellent.

I understood the logic with Civ5 to reach out to a new wave of gamers, an approach which obviously worked as many people seem to really enjoy the game but it did alienate a lot of us oldies who wanted a Civ that was more complex and compelling. So now they have attracted a load more fans and I believe they are experiencing a bit of what I/we went through when I first played Civ5. You want a better, more polished game with a deeper sense of strategy. A game with more features, more things to build and do, more units and some original thoughts.

So with BE it has to stand up to SMAC and give more to the loyal Civ5 fans and basically fails on both accounts. It certainly has potential and some excellent ideas. If only it functioned as it should. What worries me is that they know this and just want our money from expansions and DLC before you get the game into a properly playable state.

One things for sure, they will have to be very careful with Civ6 or they could end up alienating their massive fan base. A couple of companies are forging into the 4x market and some games are not that far off competing with the latest reiterations of Civ.

We all deserve more. We deserve a finished game. We deserve some loyalty back. We deserve that you have some pride in your work and we deserve a Civilization that makes forward rather than backwards progress.

 

[isau]

It should be noted that the AI in Civ 4 was actually not all that different from Civ 5 in terms of turning on you eventually. In Civ 4, you tended to be able to keep them off your back with shared religion (Isabella in particular). But as religion faded out as a factor later on they did tend to increase aggression toward you.

The point of allying with AIs has always had more to do with getting something in the short run (i.e. keeping them off your back until the right time). That particular aspect of BE doesn't seem to be working very well. IMO it arguably worked reasonably well in Civ 5 though, after the expansions came out. I have never understood why people dislike the expansion pack strategic AI in Civ 5 (again other than the "taking cities" quirk or the tactical AI that deploys units) but praise Civ 4. They both are reasonably predictable and capable of being manipulated along their personality lines, and both will definitely lie/cheat/backstab if you give them too much opportunity to be their enemy. In Civ 5 BNW in particular, it is possible to manipulate AIs against each other so that the player never becomes their target.

 

[kingsbury]

The only way to make an AI that is truly able to "outsmart" most human opponents without getting any direct bonuses is to make the game so reliant on micromanagement and advanced calculations that 99.999% of players simply can't or won't do the calculations. In that case you have made a game that has all the fun removed and you would probably have a better time trying to get into a math contest with a calculator.

 

[Question]

I dont think thats true, you can simply mae the AI smarter. There are strategy games with decent AI, i believe galatic civilizations 2 has been mentioned before.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Actually the entire software industry is moving in this direction. Building an MVP (minimum viable product) a la the Lean model has become status quo. It is a good thing guys. Especially in Firaxis's case where they've released a solid product with no significant game breaking issues on day 1, something that has become increasingly rare. (And don't lump all the EA studios together, the EA sports teams and even Dice seem to be able to release solid product while Maxis is a disaster).

How is getting half a product for a full price a good thing? How about releasing a game when its done, a la Blizzard entertainment?

 

[kingsbury]

How is getting half a product for a full price a good thing? How about releasing a game when its done, a la Blizzard entertainment?

Diablo 3 has been a mess and starcraft 2 was essentially just a graphical upgrade from starcraft 1. Blizzard hasn't released a truly "blizzard" game since WoW in 2004.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

That aside, the major features of the game aren't broken on release date, and for all intents and purposes they're complete games. That's not really the case with BE.

It doesn't matter which example one picks, the point is that some developers still consider the V1.0 version the full product. The subsequent patches should be there to iron out the problems, not to complete the game, or to be called "DLC's" and charged for separately.

 

[kingsbury]

That aside, the major features of the game aren't broken on release date, and for all intents and purposes they're complete games. That's not really the case with BE.

It is not just Firaxis, Blizzard removed the auction house in Diablo 3 and had problems with people doing the cursed chest exploit and other things. And that is far more serious of an issue because stats are tracked globally, getting good at Civ is just about bragging rights.