'Rising Tide' expansion announced!

[Galgus]

Wait didn't they say there would be an option to switch of standard start?

I think you can disable staggered start, I don't think you can exaggerate staggered start.

 

[Ryika]

Well, both, the bonuses as well as the maximum delay are moddable, but yeah, by default only 1-50 turns or instant landing. Anyone who wants a "serious" game probably wants to turn it off, as it really messes with the AI and gives a lot of very random results. But I'd say that's also the fun of it.

I actually don't think that scales with game speed though.

 

[Galgus]

Well, both, the bonuses as well as the maximum delay are moddable, but yeah, by default only 1-50 turns or instant landing. Anyone who wants a "serious" game probably wants to turn it off, as it really messes with the AI and gives a lot of very random results. But I'd say that's also the fun of it.

I actually don't think that scales with game speed though.

I always got the impression that it was scaled for a standard pace, it would be nice if such things scaled with pace settings.
_________________________________________

On another note, I'm wondering how much the AI will make use of sea cities or land in the sea.

With the new factions, space could get tight for an all-in game.

 

[iki]

I think you can disable staggered start, I don't think you can exaggerate staggered start.

Maybe I just haven't noticed as its something I'd do.

 

[durfal]

For me (and only for me as these are entirely subjective feeling on my part which may or may not align with your own feelings) these are the area's that I would really like to see worked on/improved/tweaked/whatever-ed in the expansion.

Let me be clear from the start that this isn't a complain piece, cause I still play the game regularly and only want to see (I admit a lot) things made better.

Bite you put the things this game needs good into words. For me your point 4 and 1 are the most important and I agree with your other points too and I have even some more of my own.
I still like the idea of civ's (sponsors) in space but now they are really bland in BE. Especially the pre-release in-character pieces were so promising, but they were completely lost to me in game. It realy doesn't matter if I have Kavitha, Rejinaldo or Hatuma as my closest neighbor. They feel more as Harmony/Purity/Supremacy 1, 2 and 3 in game, from the moment they choose an Affinity. And diplomacy really needs an overhaul, so I hope they can deliver that.
The staggered drop as a feature of the sponsors sounded good in advance but in game was a letdown as there is a chance that one drops almost on top of your starting colony on your already small island while there is an huge and empty continent a bit further away. That makes live unnecessarily difficult for the player and the ai even more so because the bonus for the later landfall are completely out of whack. So I play the game always with this feature turned off to make sure that I'm not one of the two sponsors that land on top of each other (There are always 2 at least in every game I played so far and they always end up in an never ending series of wars with each other).
I agree about the voice actors performing their own quotes. In my opinion the Indian (?) lady who does them all now, does a good job but it just feels wrong to hear her do an Elodie or Rejinaldo quote. They should take an example from smac on that one. Even if it is just for flavor. They can even do them all in english if thats what the problem is, just use the same voices as the leaders that made the quote. Maybe then I get more feelings for those people.
To help with that even more I think that the leader graphics should go 1 step further (like the original concept ones) where the leaders look more alien (for pure hamony), robotic (for pure supremacy) or more presidental/kinglike (for pure purity) in the end fase of he game, because now they are just color variations with an occational "headphone" or "head-wire". Weirdly enough in "Starships" the leaders all have more the look that I expected for them in the endgame in BE.
And in diplomacy they should hate the other affinities even more than they do now. I also expect more reactions from the other sponsors if I'm (finished) building my victory building.

I share bite's point of view about the stations. For me they are enormous annoyances at the moment (even the quest ones) because they always suddenly occupy the best (or block a bunch of space for) spots to put down a new city. I always play with mods that at least turn off the non quest ones.

Also I'm hugely disappointed in the fact that you still cant "mix" the existing animated leaders/original sponsors (higher settings than the lowest) with 2d leaders/modded sponsors. The fix in December only made it possible to use 2d leaders on the higher settings, but only as long as you didn't use one of the original sponsors next to them in the same game. (game crashes if you do ) Which made the whole fix a non-fix to me as I like to play with as many sponsors as now is possible (12) on a huge map. At least that problem will be solved with Rising Tide , since I than can play with 12 animated different sponsors .

 

[Minor Annoyance]

A part of the issue with leaders not having distinct enough personalties might be that there aren't enough of them.
In civ 5 I knew that if Alexander was next to me I was going to war. No if. It was happening. However Alexander wasn't in every game. If he was I might find it boring because his distinct personality and predictability would transfer to the game as a whole and I'd just feel the game was predictable. Like if Fielding whacked her neighbor every time if would be boring because she's in every game.
Now that there will be more characters they could, and would probably have to, make each more extreme, and the the random inclusion of each keep it from playing out the same every time.

 

[beetle]

...might be that there aren't enough of them.

SMAC has 7 factions, which was plenty enough for distinct personality! BE has 8 sponsors. The number of leaders available is not the problem, the defect is much, much deeper.

In civ 5 I knew that if Alexander was next to me I was going to war.

Civ works okay with scores of leaders because there is historical context, a player can keep the personalities straight. Scores of new fictional leaders would be too much. More importantly, players like the range of civs not for their leader personalities, but the UU and UA. Sadly, that is something else BE lacks (but again, the historical context really makes the UU/UA features feasible).

 

[Lord Tirian]

(but again, the historical context really makes the UU/UA features feasible).

Hmm, thinking about this, I think that's another reason the Civ5 leaders had more personality, it wasn't just the historical weight but the UU/UA drives the play style. This actually has a two-fold effect:

• The AI has an specific agenda as they follow the play style favoured by the UA
• When the player plays the faction, you, too, get an impression of said agenda and hence "motivation" of the leader.

The Civ:BE leader choice doesn't inform strategy as strongly, as a result, the AI has less of an agenda and when you play the faction yourself, you don't "feel" what is driving them.

Since a theme of Civ:BE is that you're making the choices for your own faction, I can't see them pushing stronger themes on the leaders (like SMAC did with the exaggerated ideologies), but I can see how the Dynamic Leader Traits could "fix" the first point and give the AI a stronger agenda (and hence changed play style) that gives them more personality.

 

[Barathor]

Personally, I hope they don't bring back unique units/buildings/improvements for BE. Most are basically abilities anyway at their core (just with unique graphics/icons) and can easily be transformed into one -- especially the buildings.

I hope Firaxis will take advantage of the way BE is setup with its limited number of leaders and how their design is unbound by historical shackles to really expand the unique abilities of each leader. Though, if you flip the room upside down, those historical shackles are also what holds up and supports the unique units/buildings/etc. and makes them iconically strong, otherwise they come crashing to the ground.

The unique buildings that BE leaders would get would probably be unfamiliar and less iconic. Also, you're competing with all of the existing incredible buildings in the game; , while in Civ your unique building is competing with generic, less impressive things like a bank, granary, stable, etc.

One or two bonuses like in Civ helps a little bit to make each leader play differently for players, but it could be so much better. Leader quality over leader quantity.

Also, to further enhance replayability, it would be cool to see three dormant and powerful unique abilities per leader which activate when you obtain a dominant affinity. This way, even if you play the same leader, you can have a different experience depending on the affinity path you take.

Though, with hybridization incentivized now, perhaps these affinity abilities could scale instead, and they just increase in power with affinity points. It would supplement the existing affinity bonus list as each leader's little personal one which is unique to them. Though, at the same time, having only abilities which can scale may limit them to only boring things.

 

[iki]

Well honestly we don't know what any of the new sponsors abilities will be. Part of me suspects they will suffer from the newer is better syndrome. From what we understand 2 will have water based bonuses. Or have some naval type of theme.

I wonder if we will get new cargo, spacecraft and colonists type options.

For maps themselves, I kinda would like a no water map and or a map that just has islands of one or two tiles.

 

[nimling]

IF BE's dev team is reading this, seriously think about changing 1UPT.
It's not beating a dead horse if the horse is still alive and asking for money.

....

I think it's fine though that BE is its' own thing. It shouldn't try to be AC 2.0, and sponsors aren't going to be differentiated the way SMAC's factions were.

If anything, I think the game's startup options should be flattened, rather than have a set of obvious best picks that everyone uses in MP and everyone uses to get an optimum SP outcome. Having sponsors that are slightly different from each other but balanced is better than having sponsors with strong OP abilities (see: African Union compared to Slavic Federation).

Also, Cryotome is ridiculously strong and by far the best cargo option.

Still it would be really nice if Firaxis considered reversing 1UPT, or someone in the modding community can put together a functioning MUPT mod that the AI can use. I'd like to at least play a CivV version with fun combat, and 1UPT is not fun. It's also a thing that people who aren't into CivV really, REALLY don't like, and I think the demand for MUPT strongly outweighs the demand for 1UPT - it's more like, CivV fans put up with 1UPT because they like the rest of the game, rather than 1UPT being a positive aspect.

 

[Lord Tirian]

IF BE's dev team is reading this, seriously think about changing 1UPT.

Meh, matter of taste, for some 1UPT is a very welcome change after decades of stacking. I agree that the focus on 1UPT at the start of Civ5 lead to very dull and boring gameplay but BNW and Civ:BE have both fixed these dull stretches. Civ:BE's problem are elsewhere.

 

[Valvts]

What are they going to do with the victory conditions?
Because right now you feel like 75% of the research tree is pointless, you beeline to your victory of choice, pick in the meantime some affinity techs and that it.

Maybe a condition of: 20 Techs must be reached before starting certain victory condition?

 

[Acken]

Getting techs just because you need to fulfill a quota won't make said techs interesting.

 

[Galgus]

Personally, I hope they don't bring back unique units/buildings/improvements for BE. Most are basically abilities anyway at their core (just with unique graphics/icons) and can easily be transformed into one -- especially the buildings.

I hope Firaxis will take advantage of the way BE is setup with its limited number of leaders and how their design is unbound by historical shackles to really expand the unique abilities of each leader. Though, if you flip the room upside down, those historical shackles are also what holds up and supports the unique units/buildings/etc. and makes them iconically strong, otherwise they come crashing to the ground.

The unique buildings that BE leaders would get would probably be unfamiliar and less iconic. Also, you're competing with all of the existing incredible buildings in the game; , while in Civ your unique building is competing with generic, less impressive things like a bank, granary, stable, etc.

One or two bonuses like in Civ helps a little bit to make each leader play differently for players, but it could be so much better. Leader quality over leader quantity.

Also, to further enhance replayability, it would be cool to see three dormant and powerful unique abilities per leader which activate when you obtain a dominant affinity. This way, even if you play the same leader, you can have a different experience depending on the affinity path you take.

Though, with hybridization incentivized now, perhaps these affinity abilities could scale instead, and they just increase in power with affinity points. It would supplement the existing affinity bonus list as each leader's little personal one which is unique to them. Though, at the same time, having only abilities which can scale may limit them to only boring things.

I agree that unique buildings and units just wouldn't fit thematically with BE, particularly because its a new frontier rather than rewriting history.

I could see dynamic unique abilities working, but mostly I'd just like unique abilities to be a bit stronger.

The Sponsors could stand to have a bit more difference in playstyles.

IF BE's dev team is reading this, seriously think about changing 1UPT.
It's not beating a dead horse if the horse is still alive and asking for money.

....

I think it's fine though that BE is its' own thing. It shouldn't try to be AC 2.0, and sponsors aren't going to be differentiated the way SMAC's factions were.

If anything, I think the game's startup options should be flattened, rather than have a set of obvious best picks that everyone uses in MP and everyone uses to get an optimum SP outcome. Having sponsors that are slightly different from each other but balanced is better than having sponsors with strong OP abilities (see: African Union compared to Slavic Federation).

Also, Cryotome is ridiculously strong and by far the best cargo option.

Still it would be really nice if Firaxis considered reversing 1UPT, or someone in the modding community can put together a functioning MUPT mod that the AI can use. I'd like to at least play a CivV version with fun combat, and 1UPT is not fun. It's also a thing that people who aren't into CivV really, REALLY don't like, and I think the demand for MUPT strongly outweighs the demand for 1UPT - it's more like, CivV fans put up with 1UPT because they like the rest of the game, rather than 1UPT being a positive aspect.

I completely disagree: flattening options for balance would just make the start feel stale.

My ideal would be to make every option strong to maximize the interesting asymmetry, and make a best attempt to balance it.

BE and Civ 5 are fundamentally single player games focusing on immersion with multiplayer as an extra option, and so while it is important I don't prioritize balance over interesting abilities.
______________

Personally MUPT seems extremely boring since it would mostly gut strategy from combat - turn everything into stacks of doom with maybe some faint attempts to reign it in.

What are they going to do with the victory conditions?
Because right now you feel like 75% of the research tree is pointless, you beeline to your victory of choice, pick in the meantime some affinity techs and that it.

Maybe a condition of: 20 Techs must be reached before starting certain victory condition?

That could be a good limit, though part of the problem is that some techs just don't have much to offer.

I'd like to see techs and tech paths be more competitive in terms of what they provide your colony.

 

[Valvts]

Getting techs just because you need to fulfill a quota won't make said techs interesting.

I agree completely, but it would create a certain factor of 'compromise' with the bad techs even.
You need 5 more techs to complete said victory condition, you might as well choose wisely and engage in a dilemma.
That is basically creating tough choices / dilemmas artificially.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

But there is no choise. I will still rush my affinity techs and then pick the 5 cheapest ones after I have reached the necessary affinity level. Considering the late game science income, that means 5-7 extra turns.

Even if you'd narrow the requirements to something like "you need 5 extra max level techs" there is little choise. As long as the game is over within ~250 turns, none of the mid and late game techs give significant payback that justifies researching them (except for the affinity points). In the end, I think the whole affinity system would have to be disconnected from the tech web to actually enable true player choise. Maybe it would work better if it had a culture-like style (gather points and invest them to unlock specific affinity policies/traits). But then there would still be the problem: Where should these points come from?

What came to my mind regarding techs (but unrelated to the previous points): What if we had dynamic tech effects? For example, Terraforming unlocks "plant forest" with Harmony 5+, "construct megadome" for Purity 5+ and "create hypernode" for Supremacy 5+ (or the tech effect is completely limited to the dominant affinity).

 

[nimling]

1UPT doesn't improve strategy, it severely hampers strategy.

 

[iki]

1UPT doesn't improve strategy, it severely hampers strategy.

I have to object here. While I care hardly each way. 1UPT makes you think harder about the forces you create and allocate to a zone . Where as before I could just horde my units and win by sheer numbers now I must position them to get maximum effect.

I think you should be able to create forces like in civ 3 or was it 4? Not sure, so combining units to create a strike team that be cool but still having the 1UPT .

 

[Lord Tirian]

Even if you'd narrow the requirements to something like "you need 5 extra max level techs" there is little choise.

The alternative would be to make the affinity level (and hence tech requirement) only one requirement of the affinity victory. There are already additional steps built in (laser com satellite, mind stems) but they are too easy to get.

If the victories required another condition, one more loosely tied to technology, it wouldn't be as bad as it is - at the same time, it would flesh out the actual affinities.

For example, Harmony could require a certain population (something like 33% of the world pop in an 8 player game), Supremacy could require special buildings from 2-3 outer ring techs (since Supremacy is very energy/science-themed) and Purity could require a certain amount of culture and/or terraformed tiles.

Plus, the victory wonders should not live on tree but on leaf techs - outer ring leaf techs are the most expensive techs, it only makes sense that the victory wonders are appropriately hard to reach.