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

RB3 - Daring Deity with Ottomans

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Succession Games' started by Sullla, Oct 17, 2010.

  1. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    This is interesting. Where do you think the tech tree could be culled (as opposed to just rearranged)? Civ 5 already has less techs than any Civ 2-4 (yes, I counted) with around 70, as compared to 85-90 for Civ 4, depending on version (Civ 2/3 also had 80-90, not sure about 1).
     
  2. Jaffa Tamarin

    Jaffa Tamarin Monkey Cult

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    570
    As I see it, empire building is the early part of the game. This was the part of Civ3/Civ4 that I enjoyed, exploring the land, establishing my cities, maybe some early skirmishes. And then you got to the later part of the game, where I already had my empire, and it became a game of empire management (which was, frankly, tedious), and large-scale warfare, which was meh. In Civ5 the early game feels similar, but in the late-game the empire management is less tedious, and the warfare is less meh. For Civ3/Civ4 playing in succession games was the only way I found to make the later part of the game bearable, and I rarely finished a solo game. I've already finished more solo games of Civ5 than I ever did of earlier versions of Civ.

    And I can't believe that somewhere in this thread there were people complaining about how they missed road spam. You have to be really determined to hate a game to think that road spam is better than a proper road network of roads going from A to B because there's a reason for it.
     
  3. Dantski

    Dantski Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    236
    oh noes its corbeau the annoying mod maker :lol:
     
  4. rb8954

    rb8954 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Perhaps you think they should do something to make spamming tile improvements a bad thing to do also? Make them similar to roads? Perhaps each improvement reduces overall output of that cities science, gold output, etc in a cumulative fashion. (So building too many of them is a bad idea) It would be proper tile improvements, so does this mean you are really determined to hate a game to think improvement tile spam is better?
     
  5. Jaffa Tamarin

    Jaffa Tamarin Monkey Cult

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    570
    Tile improvement spam is in both games. In Civ4 roads were just another tile improvement to be spammed. Civ5 does roads better.
     
  6. chaunceymo

    chaunceymo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    28
    There is one reasonably elegant solution to the above problem that has probably been suggested elsewhere, as it's been in plenty of previous 4X games: split civilian and military queues.

    If you don't have to worry about the impact of building costs when figuring out military costs, you can keep military units very expensive (keeping the battlefield from getting too cluttered), but will be able to make buildings affordable. Give the AI benefits to civilian building at high levels (giving them better cities) but no benefit to military building.

    I know Civ5 abhors sliders, and this scheme would require both a civ-wide military/civilian production slider and city sliders that let you override the civ-wide one, but it feels like it would correct a major problem in the game if done well.
     
  7. atteSmythe

    atteSmythe Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    lurker's comment: Thanks for a great thread, guys. It was really helpful for me, and a pleasure to read as well. I appreciate the turn-by-turn commentary, and looked forward to reading the new posts each day. Thanks!
     
  8. chaunceymo

    chaunceymo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    28
    Sorry to go off-topic, but I really have to ask: is this a joke? SMAC was in large part so great because of the atmosphere and incredible production values (for a game of that time). Civ5 has easily the weakest atmosphere/production values of any Civ game to date.

    Back on topic: I forgot to say in my previous post, but thanks for the game! Interesting to see game-breaking tactics executed at such a high level, and depressing that deity can be beaten so handily just by efficiently playing within the bounds of the game, rather than exploiting a single major problem (like the infamous perpetual anarchy praetorian steamroll in early Civ 4).
     
  9. Bezhukov

    Bezhukov Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,001
    Nice one. This + six tiles min between cities + higher tile counts might just do the trick.
     
  10. Bezhukov

    Bezhukov Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,001
    As for all the frustration - it's understandable, but I think it's more a result of the fact that the PC is no longer the platform of choice for gaming. That means less resources however you slice it.

    If we want a better game, and I think we all do whatever our reaction to what 5 is so far, we'll have to take the initiative ourselves to make it one. Of course many already are, but others seem content to play other games/vent. Not sure what that accomplishes given the opportunities that exist to make it better on our own.
     
  11. Bezhukov

    Bezhukov Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,001
    The interesting thing about the theory that the testers totally missed ICS is that several of the AI use it themselves!

    My first few games where I went with a few megacities I noticed Bismarck spamming away and wondered how he managed his happiness - then he proceeded to pound me into the ground on emperor. My first hint that ICS might be the way to go.

    One other advantage of ICS is that border growth (especially to hammer tiles) is just too slow for mid-sized cities, while with ICS you can get those tiles online much earlier.
     
  12. Donaithnen

    Donaithnen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Southern California
    Very much this! It feels incredibly stupid to have to flag a destroyer as escort for my modern age military units while they cross large bodies of water, not because i'm afraid of the AI civs, but because i'm afraid a random barbarian _caravel_ is going to take it out when i'm not looking!

    I'm not sure if it's a bug or not that such trips become necessary if i want to pick up the half-dozen or so ruins on small islands that the AI has been ignoring for the past few thousand years. They can send settlers across two continents to plant a city right in the middle of my territory, but can't bother to cross a minor channel to grab a free ruin?
     
  13. Corbeau

    Corbeau Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Wow. I forgot that you played these games. Also forgot that I used to go by that title; my ego has grown much healthier since those days. :cool: Though what with teaching and thesis-writing, I haven't been doing much modding.

    No joke: while Civ's atmosphere and meaning will never surpass SMAC simply because Civ is restricted to "what was" and SMAC explores "what could be", Civ 5 is the first time that I've seen a Civ game engine attempt to use a more complex model of human development than SMAC did. Civ 5's culture system is the most significant leap that the series has made in gamic rhetoric since SMAC itself, and it would be a shame if that is overlooked because of unrelated design failures.
     
  14. Speaker

    Speaker Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Section 1
    Perhaps it's because the designers of Civ5 and the lackeys they hired to test it never actually understood what made the previous incarnations of the game successful?
     
  15. Donaithnen

    Donaithnen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15
    Location:
    Southern California
    I really like this idea. The ability to easily combine and split groups of the same type of unit would simplify the battlefield while still allowing the kind of tactical flexibility 1upt is supposed to promote. I must admit that i like the idea of combine army stacks that go to a separate mode when combat is engaged (either a simple system like Call to Power or a new zoomed in map like Koei games) even better, however this idea has the advantage of being relatively simple to implement.

    Perhaps rush-buying ought to be modified so it is actually a "rush" rather than an "instant" buy. It's been pointed out before that the idea of throwing money at a problem to get results is a relatively recent idea. It doesn't make sense that handful of gold will get you spearmen any faster. So at the start of the game rush buying should be impossible, or at best it should speed things up by some "small" factor. Then as you reach certain technologies the speed bonus you get would increase. The cost would either stay the same or go up as you reached each new tech, depending on how you wanted to balance things. Perhaps at first rush buying would get the unit completed in half the time, then a third the time, then a quarter the time, again depending on how you wanted to balance things.

    Of course that would mean that if you needed to rush buy a unit to defend against an incoming attack you might be forced to go with a weaker unit in order to get it done in time, or that it would just be impossible. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not :)

    Of course given how this would end up being used by power players, perhaps there it would be simpler to have some system to "tax" production at weaker cities and concentrate the extra production at core cities, but that might be more programming work that modifying the current rush-buy system.
     
  16. pi-r8

    pi-r8 Luddite

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,501
    Location:
    Babylon
    Well like I said before, they have to make science come fast relative to production in order to avoid large armies that clog the map. Unfortunately, as we've seen, we still get those large armies in the later parts of the game. Culling some of the tech tree could help that by speeding up science- although it would lead to an extremely short game. Good for multiplayer I guess.

    There's a lot of techs that only offer 1 thing, and you're forced to research them just to get the next tech. For example gunpowder, metallurgy, fertilizer, rifling, dynamite- all of them do only one thing, and I'm forced to research all of them mainly just to get artillery. I'd replace all those with just one or two techs that do more.
     
  17. Irgy

    Irgy Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,407
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think doing 1 thing is the general pattern for techs if you discount wonders (which on deity at least are nigh on impossible to get anyway, early on at least).

    I don't agree that unit production has to be slow directly relative to science. Given that you're encouraged to upgrade units, science moving on doesn't reset your unit count the way it used to anyway. They just need to be slow relative to the overall pace of the game. Now the science rate does determine that somewhat, but so does the time it takes to conquer another civilisation, the time it takes to grow, the turn limit, and many other things. Maybe making units more expensive relative to buildings would help, then there'd be motivation to build rather than unit pump.

    Playing on Deity is skewing the issue a bit too. The AI spams troops like no-one should be able to, and humans need to abuse various things to compete, ending up with large armies as well by necessity. On lower difficulties maybe armies aren't so big - it's not that you couldn't build an even bigger army than on Deity, it's that if you're good enough to make an army that big you'll win the game before you get there. Deity is meant to be a degenerate limit, not the balancing point. But because the game is too easy, for a variety of other reasons, there's a lot more people playing on Deity now (such as myself).
     
  18. Khaim

    Khaim Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    394
    This sounds like a wonderful idea. I'm not sure why you think sliders are required. Just give the city's production to both queues, and increase costs to compensate. (In other words, lock it at 50/50.) One thing to note is that the civilian side can build wealth/research if nothing else is available or interesting. Should the military be able to build wealth/research as well? I'm inclined to say no, which means that there needs to be something else for it to do. It's actually much more likely that you'll be in a position where you don't want more units that one where you don't want more buildings. This suggests the following:

    The military queue can "build" xp for its garrison unit.
    AND/OR
    The military queue can "build" an upgrade for its garrison unit.

    The second option could actually replace the current gold upgrades. I think it makes a little more sense thematically, and is certainly more interesting tactically: you can't instantly upgrade your army during a war. This also prevents the "5 turn Infantry" issue you saw in this game, because upgrades now require hammers (and time) proportional to building a new unit instead of one turn and X gold.

    Both options here also give meaning to garrisons; currently there is no reason to garrison your core cities and very minor reasons to garrison your borders (ignoring that rather bad Honor SP).
     
  19. Thomas G.

    Thomas G. Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    127
    One possible thing to limit ICS a little....
    significantly increase cost of settlers whenever you attain a new age.

    Would have some historical accuracy - seems to me that most current cities were founded a long time ago, and also that if one suddenly wanted to set up a new city today it would take a heck of a lot more basic infrastructure in place before anyone would consider moving there...so higher cost of settlers.

    This would also be a slight curb to the technologically-leading (or slingshotting) empires as well. And provide some strategic thinking...this tech is really nice, but mabye I should expand a bit more first...

    Would not be felt in the ancient age at all, and would limit rush-settling in medieval times and gradually ..(not force but)..encourage people to develop/conquer current cities rather than raze and carpet over with new ones.
     
  20. rb8954

    rb8954 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    The only problem with many of the solutions, is that they often nerf more parts of the game to fix it. It inadvertently would be taking away the few gameplay options that there are, leaving gameplay with perhaps a more stable, but with a even more limited way to play the game.
     

Share This Page