RFC for Civ 5?

[Rod]

Modability: With unprecedented modding tools, players will have unlimited options for modifying Civilization V any way they like.

source

This doesn't mean anything. They released the source code for Civ IV. There is NO Tool which can compare in power with this release. However only a small minority of modders was able to handle this gift properly and therefore many projects died due to the lack of either developers (code experts) or graphic specialists. But the projects which had either or both became the best mods ever made for Civilization.

RFC, FFH, HoTK (History of the Three Kingdoms) ..

Hence in Civ 5 we might expect a powerful modding tool which will be easier usable for a larger group of modders. However if the tool will give only access to the variables, but not to the mechanics and (if this is the case) they won't release the source code then a project like FFH would be impossible and just imagine RFC without stability and other new and non-Firaxis features...

 

[Panopticon]

Somewhat off-topic, but I hope RFC experiences subsequent (even "final") releases despite this announcement. Everything said about Civ 5 so far seems to be preparing us for a simplified, strategic wargame version of the franchise. I want something to play in case that comes about.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I would love to see something like the Civ3 easy-mode modding menu combined with the power of the python and source code for Civ4. The power in Civ4 was great, but the user interface was not.

 

[deanej]

Unfortunatly then you lose part of the power of having the source code, as then you can't extend the XML (such as by adding new fields).

 

[Rhye]

yeah that is my biggest fear. Because so many people complained about the lack of an editor, I hope they didn't make it (thus, taking away liberty of completely editing the structure of the game)

 

[Panopticon]

Power editing is bad for casual modders but good for both Civ IV-standard competent modders and the mod player, who enjoys higher-quality mods on average due to the higher barriers to entry.

 

[deanej]

yeah that is my biggest fear. Because so many people complained about the lack of an editor, I hope they didn't make it (thus, taking away liberty of completely editing the structure of the game)

Yeah, I'm afraid of that too.

 

[jmerry]

What I'm hoping for: Mac mod compatibility. Modified DLLs are the bane of Mac Civ players' existence right now.

From my perspective, XML modding has a low barrier to entry, Python requires some code skills, and everything that goes into the DLL is a black box I can't touch at all.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I'm sure there would be some way to have an XML-level editor which worked, while acknowledging that it's unlikely to work with the Python-level modding.

 

[deanej]

It's actually very easy to make an XML editor GUI that would maintain the power of modding while making it easy. Just have the editor dynamically make the fields based on the schema and have an XML file that stores all the tags and gives them a nicer field and hover text for tags that are defined there. The problem: you have to maintain that file, which would be a fair amount of work.

Regardless of editor, python stuff would still work. It's the SDK that we have to worry about.

 

[Sikandar]

With the advent of the city-state feature I think it would be interesting if RFC were adjusted to reflect this in a beneficial way.

For instance, if the Greeks are able to raze the city of Troy (make it extremely well-defended) by 1200 BC they get some sort of reward that will help them in the game (perhaps more units spawn in their capitol and they get a substantially higher amount of plunder).

 

[Leoreth]

When I read the news about the new city states, I also thought "That'd be a great feature for RFC!". We finally could represent minor nations like Israel, Korea, Papal States etc. better than only with a generic faction.

My greatest fear is that the now hexagonal map makes any attempt to create a reasonable world map impossible ... but maybe Firaxis manages to support larger maps so this won't be a problem.

 

[Panopticon]

My greatest fear is that the now hexagonal map makes any attempt to create a reasonable world map impossible ... but maybe Firaxis manages to support larger maps so this won't be a problem.

I think it should be OK. Hexagons are more detailed than squares, so if anything, it should allow more accurate maps.

 

[Rhye]

city-states, as far as we know, seem to take inspiration from independents, isn't it?

 

[Leoreth]

Well, I guess we could put it that way

@Panopticon:
I'm not worried about accuracies, more about problems with representing straight coastlines from North to South. I fear that could look rather awful if the engine only allows as many tiles as Civ4.

 

[Panopticon]

Well, I guess we could put it that way

@Panopticon:
I'm not worried about accuracies, more about problems with representing straight coastlines from North to South. I fear that could look rather awful if the engine only allows as many tiles as Civ4.

Sure. Screenshots suggest that will be a problem. I suspect map size will be more like Civ 3.

And yes, I think that city states will be independents with more options.

 

[Ataxerxes]

city-states, as far as we know, seem to take inspiration from independents, isn't it?

When I saw the city states in the Civ 5 intro, I thought of you, Rhye. I think they did get the idea from you.

 

[Leoreth]

Either that, or to find a cheap way to shut up all the "[County I live in] MUST be a Civ in the next Addon" people

 

[5StarGen.Xeno]

The Rhye giveth and the Rhye taketh away.

 

[Michael Vick]

Is there any chance that RFC for Civ5 will be a community project?