MrGameTheory
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
- Messages
- 53
It is time for the phenomenon known as MrGameTheory to once again make its presence known to the civ world... 
With all of my infinite knowledge I have decided to scroll through what has been revealed about Civilization V and analyze with a vengeance.
Your friend and hero will add to this thread gradually, but for now I have decided to just give a brief analysis of some important points.
1) Turtle strategies will dominate Civilization V. You will soon see that mass quantities of archery units will dominate all ancient games making aggressive early rushing less appealing.
2) The settings that will be most commonly used in MP games will remove variables of luck like relics/barbarians etc, but many of the leaders have special traits which require these variables. Unfortunately Random leader games will result in disadvantages for unlucky players and advantages for lucky players. The bonuses may appear to not give big bonuses so all leaders are on equal footing, but this is incorrect and some of the revealed special abilities/units/buildings have huge strategic implications. As far as I can see the following leaders are either strong or weak in terms of MP.
Strong:
Aztec
France
Japan
Above average:
Russia
Rome
Average:
America
Trade Caravans
China
Egypt
Iroquois
Persia
Weak:
England
Germany
Greece
India
Ottomans
Siam
Songhai
* These will change a little based on the civs with unique buildings in the ancient era.
3) Civilization V is a dumbed down version of Civilization IV and is a mix of Civilization IV and Civilization Revolution. The powers that be determined that Civilization IV was too complicated for most gamers and they have taken a step back to appeal to mass markets. Hopefully Civilization IV will not be the most complex civ game ever made, but if Civ V is a commercial success we may not see a complicated Civ game for a very very long time. On a relative basis I do not think that Civ V will be as successful because of the strong migration to "social games." More importantly, while the game needed to be dumbed down so the masses can learn the game, when they do learn the game they are going to be very disappointed in their investment of time.
4) They made a mistake in the cost to strength ratio of warriors and scouts. Scouts cost 25 and provide a 4 strength unit. Warriors cost 40 and provide a 6th strength unit. More importantly, Because only 1 unit can occupy a hex at a time you will see mass flooding of these cheap units in blocking strategies and this will reinforce a turtle strategy by using scouts as buffers to enemy advances while archers destroy military advances. Who cares if a war chariot has 100 movements a turn when the cost of scouts is soo cheap that sacrificing 2 to catch a war chariot still results in a net loss of 10 for the war chariots side. Sadly, Civ 5 is a strategic step backwards from Civ IV
5) Trims will be used like turrets that weaken enemy units. They will be placed in coast tiles and will give huge advantages to players who hit the oceans first. With a small number of trims created early on a player can prevent other players from expanding to the ocean. Unlike in Civ IV where you can't attack a boat in a city, in Civ V that is not the case. This is a huge strategic error on the Dev team's part.
6) The cost of archers for 5 ranged strength is hilarious to me. I see pike man and long swordsmen with costs of 150 for only 10-18 strength lol... They have pretty much created the following game.... (Expand like crazy in early eras, only build scouts and archers, and do not focus on tec advancement, focus instead on making mass amounts of gold, build a bigger shell, game over to the tec rushers because you will have more cities, more production, and more gold)... The cost of units gets so high that there is no appeal to go for any other type of victory except a conquest victory...... Especially since units can enter water tiles now, which ultimately takes away water barriers.... This is Civ V.. Hope you were not looking forward to it
7) Civ IV at least had MP at heart, this game is less MP friendly from a strategic point of view and has been made mainly for single players. They may have upgraded a few MP features like using steam, but ultimately the mechanics and content of the game make this far less appealing from an MP point of view. Case and point - The use of turtle strategies will make Civ V a mostly ancient game with less strategic incentive to tec.
8 ) The reason why they did not release a demo or have an open beta is because they know that the game is MP trash and only a very good single player game (Not even close to a fantastic single player game). They know that in days-weeks players will discover just how basic the game's strategy is. They made a game that was easier to play, but at a cost of it no longer being the best strategy game. Good job guys.......... Why even have MP in Civ V? This was designed to be a single player game from the start... Sid could have made the Civilization franchise far more than it is by converting Civ to an MP game instead of leaving it single player. How is Civ network coming along
I understand the need to make a whole new game, but the wrong things have been sacrificed. I understand that single player focus is everything to the game creators, but I could have designed a better single player or single/multi-player Civ game in 1-10 days. I can respect the decision to dumb down the game, but it could have been more intelligently dumbed down in order to still have a great game that stands apart from everything else out..... Lets put it like this..... Civ 1 was the best for its time, Civ 2 was the best for its time, Civ 3 was the best for its time, Civ 4 was the best for its time, Civ Rev was the best console strategy game for its time, Civ 5 is not the best for its time and not worthy to be strategy game of the year. Civ 5 is the most beautiful Civ game, but it is not even close to the best strategy game and will easily lose to Starcraft 2.
I recommend firing whoever was put in charge of designing the strategy behind this game.
This came from only 35 minutes of looking at what has been revealed.. Give me a full day with the game and I will break down the next 6 months of MP progression. Ill even tell you the progression of patches made by the dev team before they even know what to change
Until the game is released you can go play http://onemorelevel.com/game/pixel_purge - While your there check out the All Time high score list
And for those who want to knock my strategic hustle – Remember that I was ranked #1 in the world in both Civ IV and Civ Rev
When all of the information is released I will finalize the analysis.
With all of my infinite knowledge I have decided to scroll through what has been revealed about Civilization V and analyze with a vengeance.
Your friend and hero will add to this thread gradually, but for now I have decided to just give a brief analysis of some important points.
1) Turtle strategies will dominate Civilization V. You will soon see that mass quantities of archery units will dominate all ancient games making aggressive early rushing less appealing.
2) The settings that will be most commonly used in MP games will remove variables of luck like relics/barbarians etc, but many of the leaders have special traits which require these variables. Unfortunately Random leader games will result in disadvantages for unlucky players and advantages for lucky players. The bonuses may appear to not give big bonuses so all leaders are on equal footing, but this is incorrect and some of the revealed special abilities/units/buildings have huge strategic implications. As far as I can see the following leaders are either strong or weak in terms of MP.
Strong:
Aztec
France
Japan
Above average:
Russia
Rome
Average:
America
Trade Caravans
China
Egypt
Iroquois
Persia
Weak:
England
Germany
Greece
India
Ottomans
Siam
Songhai
* These will change a little based on the civs with unique buildings in the ancient era.
3) Civilization V is a dumbed down version of Civilization IV and is a mix of Civilization IV and Civilization Revolution. The powers that be determined that Civilization IV was too complicated for most gamers and they have taken a step back to appeal to mass markets. Hopefully Civilization IV will not be the most complex civ game ever made, but if Civ V is a commercial success we may not see a complicated Civ game for a very very long time. On a relative basis I do not think that Civ V will be as successful because of the strong migration to "social games." More importantly, while the game needed to be dumbed down so the masses can learn the game, when they do learn the game they are going to be very disappointed in their investment of time.
4) They made a mistake in the cost to strength ratio of warriors and scouts. Scouts cost 25 and provide a 4 strength unit. Warriors cost 40 and provide a 6th strength unit. More importantly, Because only 1 unit can occupy a hex at a time you will see mass flooding of these cheap units in blocking strategies and this will reinforce a turtle strategy by using scouts as buffers to enemy advances while archers destroy military advances. Who cares if a war chariot has 100 movements a turn when the cost of scouts is soo cheap that sacrificing 2 to catch a war chariot still results in a net loss of 10 for the war chariots side. Sadly, Civ 5 is a strategic step backwards from Civ IV
5) Trims will be used like turrets that weaken enemy units. They will be placed in coast tiles and will give huge advantages to players who hit the oceans first. With a small number of trims created early on a player can prevent other players from expanding to the ocean. Unlike in Civ IV where you can't attack a boat in a city, in Civ V that is not the case. This is a huge strategic error on the Dev team's part.
6) The cost of archers for 5 ranged strength is hilarious to me. I see pike man and long swordsmen with costs of 150 for only 10-18 strength lol... They have pretty much created the following game.... (Expand like crazy in early eras, only build scouts and archers, and do not focus on tec advancement, focus instead on making mass amounts of gold, build a bigger shell, game over to the tec rushers because you will have more cities, more production, and more gold)... The cost of units gets so high that there is no appeal to go for any other type of victory except a conquest victory...... Especially since units can enter water tiles now, which ultimately takes away water barriers.... This is Civ V.. Hope you were not looking forward to it
7) Civ IV at least had MP at heart, this game is less MP friendly from a strategic point of view and has been made mainly for single players. They may have upgraded a few MP features like using steam, but ultimately the mechanics and content of the game make this far less appealing from an MP point of view. Case and point - The use of turtle strategies will make Civ V a mostly ancient game with less strategic incentive to tec.
8 ) The reason why they did not release a demo or have an open beta is because they know that the game is MP trash and only a very good single player game (Not even close to a fantastic single player game). They know that in days-weeks players will discover just how basic the game's strategy is. They made a game that was easier to play, but at a cost of it no longer being the best strategy game. Good job guys.......... Why even have MP in Civ V? This was designed to be a single player game from the start... Sid could have made the Civilization franchise far more than it is by converting Civ to an MP game instead of leaving it single player. How is Civ network coming along
I understand the need to make a whole new game, but the wrong things have been sacrificed. I understand that single player focus is everything to the game creators, but I could have designed a better single player or single/multi-player Civ game in 1-10 days. I can respect the decision to dumb down the game, but it could have been more intelligently dumbed down in order to still have a great game that stands apart from everything else out..... Lets put it like this..... Civ 1 was the best for its time, Civ 2 was the best for its time, Civ 3 was the best for its time, Civ 4 was the best for its time, Civ Rev was the best console strategy game for its time, Civ 5 is not the best for its time and not worthy to be strategy game of the year. Civ 5 is the most beautiful Civ game, but it is not even close to the best strategy game and will easily lose to Starcraft 2.
I recommend firing whoever was put in charge of designing the strategy behind this game.
This came from only 35 minutes of looking at what has been revealed.. Give me a full day with the game and I will break down the next 6 months of MP progression. Ill even tell you the progression of patches made by the dev team before they even know what to change
Until the game is released you can go play http://onemorelevel.com/game/pixel_purge - While your there check out the All Time high score list
And for those who want to knock my strategic hustle – Remember that I was ranked #1 in the world in both Civ IV and Civ Rev
When all of the information is released I will finalize the analysis.
