Simplification?

[Calouste]

Things that look like they got smarter, as in more interesting game play:

- Combat system
- Expanding cultural borders
- Social policies

I think fewer techs in the tree actually makes the game smarter. Techs will be more expensive to research so you have to think a bit more ahead to decide whether you are going to research that military tech or not. In Civ4 you could basically start researching a tech when the enemy showed up at the border and have the units out by the time the SoD reached your city. That's not going to work in Civ5. And yes, Civ4 has more techs, but quite a few of them are fillers or just not very relevant in some situations (Archery when you have Copper for example). And there are some horribly deep beelines that feel rather exploitive.

And what ShaqFu said. More sensible playing, less game trickery, and IMO more emphasis on short to middle term planning rather than having to worry that decisions you make now are going to bit you in the back in the middle to late term. For example with the new 3 hex city radius and hex by hex expansion, you can actually put cities where it makes sense in the ancient era, on a river next to a food resource, rather than having to put it in some awkward place because other wise a Calendar resource falls just outside your BFC. And with the new combat system with ZoC and more influence for terrain features, you also don't have to place a city somewhere weird just to block your enemy.

 

[Earthling]

I think it's less an issue of simplification and moreso of Civ5 being less gamey. From what I can tell so far, it's shaping up to be a lot less "use this arcane combination of +/-s to win the game" and more "do sensible things and you'll do well."

The entire combat system would immediately disagree with this, and until we all see the diplomacy in action and experience, I wouldn't particularly trust (positive) claims about the AI

 

[bjbrains]

The entire combat system would immediately disagree with this, and until we all see the diplomacy in action and experience, I wouldn't particularly trust (positive) claims about the AI

Explain how the entire combat system disagrees with this. I'd say it encourages logical tactics as opposed to the 'SOD>all' aspect of previous civs.

 

[ShaqFu]

The entire combat system would immediately disagree with this, and until we all see the diplomacy in action and experience, I wouldn't particularly trust (positive) claims about the AI

On the contrary, the new combat is more intuitive if anything. Stack combat was, quite frankly, really weird; to do it effectively, you'd have to spreadsheet out the various victory %s from running your huge mass of men into the enemy's huge mass of men, then figure out how much your siege engines would do in collateral damage, then figure out an attack order (position be damned!). If you like your odds, then see if anyone would promote if they survive for the free heal, then see if you'll spawn a Great General and if you can make a super Medic, and hope that the dice are in your favor.

In Civ5, you can tell at a glance how combat is going. No need for min-maxing or scrolling through 50+ units on a single tile to win - just a keen eye for maneuvers, some strategic resource management, and a little luck. Clever players should be rewarded for taking advantage of complex combat opportunities, not punished because they didn't know you can exploit Slavery to get out one whole extra Axeman every three turns!

 

[Tomice]

What I do think is that they focus on doing basics right instead of implementing mechanics just for the sake of making the game complicated. BTS had a bunch of extra stuff added to the vanilla game, but that was after they had evaluated and patched the basic game.

Hexes, 1upt, city states, social policies, ... they are all new, but basic. While I have no fear that they will dumb down the game on purpose, it will be a vanilla 1.0 version. There might be a slight lack of those added mechanics hidden in submenus (espionage) or only accesibe through a certain playstyle (corporations).

All together, I'm sure it will be a good game. But us freaks will definitely want an addon after a few months - though then again, we always want more And addons will come, this time even DLC. And there's always mods...

Don't worry, be happy, and play Starcraft 2 till September

EDIT: I do think that civ5 vanilla might be more complex than Civ4 vanilla - they have experiences from BTS and all previous titles.

 

[Calouste]

The entire combat system would immediately disagree with this, and until we all see the diplomacy in action and experience, I wouldn't particularly trust (positive) claims about the AI

You mean a combat system that encourages you to do sensible things like using the terrain to your advantage, supporting your close combat troops with ranged attackers, keeping a close front so your defensive units protect your ranged attackers and counterattackers like knights and trying to flank your enemy line instead of crashing into it head on?

 

[Earthling]

I'd recommend disregarding debate versus previous stacking combat systems, because that's not what anyone actually said.

What was posted, is that civ5 is supposedly going to avoid "arcane combinations" to gain an advantage. As you all just said, you really already proved my point, the 1upt system is going to require a large amount of micromanagement and positioning. So rather than being self-evident and intuitive, players most likely will in fact have to figure out certain powerful combinations and setups that take advantage of the AI suiciding their units against difficult terrain or whatever.

Likewise, there is no evidence about anything with diplomacy about the AI right now. If anything, AI modifiers and behavior if they are not made explicit to the player could be even more complicated and frustrating. Here I will make a comparison to civ4 - at the basic level the simple and intuitive part was "share their religion, run their civic, and they will like you" so it's not guaranteed the AI actually got any better diplomatically.

 

[tom2050]

Of course Civ 5 is simplified so they reach mainstream gamers. This I expected long ago; it should not be surprising they are doing so. Mainstream gamers see micro-management (even if there is very little of it) as an absolute chore; and some see having a stack as horribly complicated and difficult to comprehend; and with Firaxis' business model of changing the game according to mainstream gamers' wishes that don't correspond to the Civilization model (instead of improving the model), this is why they are heading in that direction (with the bad help of 2K).

 

[Schuesseled]

Judjing from this site:
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/index.html
it looks like Civ5 is being very streamlined.

Not only regarding the shorter tech tree and the absence of religions (with related units and buildings).
It looks like there will be many less units and buildings. We already knew about the lack of transport ships. But for instance, if what the site says is confirmed, there will be only 3 air units (fighter, bomber, helicopter) instead of 7 (airship, jet fighter, stealth bomber, paratroopers). The lack of modern air units take us back to Civ1 times.

I believe that some simplification is a good thing, because some aspects of civ4 (resources, improvements, espionage, corporations, missionaries etc.) were a bit redundant.
I just hope it doesn't become too much dumbed down because of the influence of CivRev. Of course, we cannot judge until we get our hands on it.

Your thoughts?

other than the paratroopers those are just the next units up in the tech tree, and im sure well see them, as the modern era is now longer, (and contains mechs.)

 

[AriochIV]

When you have two expansions for a title, the feature lists tends to get a little bloated, so the next new version is always going to feel a little lean by comparison. This was certainly the case in moving from Civ III to Civ IV.

The entire combat system would immediately disagree with this, and until we all see the diplomacy in action and experience, I wouldn't particularly trust (positive) claims about the AI

That's certainly prudent; historically, claims of "improved AI" and "increased moddability" very often turn out to be pure hype. But in this case I am cautiously optimistic. The technical polish I'm seeing in Civ V is unprecedented in the series.

I'm also skeptical about whether the new leader interaction system works as well in practice as they think it will in theory, but we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Calouste]

I'd recommend disregarding debate versus previous stacking combat systems, because that's not what anyone actually said.

What was posted, is that civ5 is supposedly going to avoid "arcane combinations" to gain an advantage. As you all just said, you really already proved my point, the 1upt system is going to require a large amount of micromanagement and positioning. So rather than being self-evident and intuitive, players most likely will in fact have to figure out certain powerful combinations and setups that take advantage of the AI suiciding their units against difficult terrain or whatever.

Likewise, there is no evidence about anything with diplomacy about the AI right now. If anything, AI modifiers and behavior if they are not made explicit to the player could be even more complicated and frustrating. Here I will make a comparison to civ4 - at the basic level the simple and intuitive part was "share their religion, run their civic, and they will like you" so it's not guaranteed the AI actually got any better diplomatically.

So putting strong defensive units on strong defensive terrain and not putting vulnerable units where they can be attacked by the enemy is not "self-evident and intuitive"?

In Panzer General II there were indeed a few tricks where you could bait the AI, but nothing major, and it was pretty good at exploiting any mistakes you made. And that was 13 years ago.

 

[Tomice]

Of course Civ 5 is simplified so they reach mainstream gamers. This I expected long ago; it should not be surprising they are doing so. Mainstream gamers see micro-management (even if there is very little of it) as an absolute chore; and some see having a stack as horribly complicated and difficult to comprehend; and with Firaxis' business model of changing the game according to mainstream gamers' wishes that don't correspond to the Civilization model (instead of improving the model), this is why they are heading in that direction (with the bad help of 2K).

Which part of vanilla Civ4 do you see missing to make such a pessimist comment? Well except the questionable religion part?

Not in Vanilla Civ4:

Vassals (puppet state mechanic)
Great generals (seen on screens)
Unique buildings (confirmed)
Corporations (?)
Random events (? but there are quests from city states and natural wonders)

vs.

Espionage, Religions (gone for now)

There really is a lot of change, but few things are gone without replacement. I really don't see this game go the CivRev way. City screen, tile improvements, diplomacy, economy look just as complex as civ4.

 

[AriochIV]

I will miss vassals. The vassal system (or at least, how it ended up in BTS after many patches) was really fun.

 

[Earthling]

Those particular ideas are, but if you don't realize this is not even close to summarizing how combat will shake down, I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't want to argue about civ4 stacks again, but what you've said is equivalent to what could be said for civ4 stacks already being extremely self-evident and intuitive. Namely, you aim to build a bigger army and aim to take out the opponent's targets of interest (their armies or cities, bringing siege units against cities.)

What is actually going to happen, in no small part just thanks to all the smart people on these boards and playing civilization in general, is that many exploits and optimal unit balances and situations will quickly become known, 3 archers and 2 spearmen combos or whatever. The suggestion that the new combat system will eliminate the need for "micromanagement" and "finding ideal combinations" just doesn't hold a lot of water.

The AI in Panzer General and the related Pacific General, Fantasy General etc... was not impressive at all. It was easy to tear to pieces on anything close to level ground - the challenge of the campaigns of course was that you were not on level ground, you were put in challenging situations where you had to make very tactical moves. Yes, they are older games and so I wouldn't suggest the AI in civ5 would be the same as 13 years ago, but certainly that's not an example of an AI coping sufficiently.

Which part of vanilla Civ4 do you see missing to make such a pessimist comment?

Edit for xpost:
You've already mention religion, I would say that we could add that changed civics/social policies, and the diplomacy system, may actually be "missing" by being far less complete or in depth compared to civ4 but we don't know for sure yet.

Huge maps (not confirmed)
Epic speed (not confirmed)
Naval combat (many units removed)
Detailed Victory Conditions (Domination and Conquest made far simpler, Cultural altered/removed)
Specialists and Great people (significantly altered)

Also Espionage was not in vanilla civ4. But vassals and espionage actually were and kinda remain poor systems through BtS so I wouldn't really be missing them

Again, I should add a disclaimer that civ5 could of course be very fun, but really, I have to side every time with those who see clear writing on the wall that the game is not looking to be as in-depth or epic as previous versions. It could simply be "streamlined", but the risk it is "dumbed-down" as has been said before I'd say is there too.

 

[Ahriman]

I wouldn't particularly trust (positive) claims about the AI

That's certainly prudent; historically, claims of "improved AI" and "increased moddability" very often turn out to be pure hype

The AI in Panzer General and the related Pacific General, Fantasy General etc... was not impressive at all. It was easy to tear to pieces on anything close to level ground - the challenge of the campaigns of course was that you were not on level ground, you were put in challenging situations where you had to make very tactical moves

I agree here. I'll believe it when I see it. The difficulty of getting a good 1upt AI is my only reservation about this change.

It is much harder to code a good 1upt AI than a stack AI that just builds an army and throws it at the closest city, which is basically what the Civ4 AI does.

 

[Zhahz]

Eh, do we even really know what's going on yet? There's a list of "confirmed" stuff but isn't all that stuff pulled out of videos and previews and not truly confirmed (by firaxis or anyone of authority).

I wanna see whatever for myself, or at least see Sulla-like walkthrus, to really know how this, or anything that gets wildly speculated about here, is really gonna work.

I just want good AI. Graphics are nice. Slick new UI is nice. Gameplay changes are nice. Hexes are nice. None of it means squat if the AI sucks.

With Civ IV it took BTS and patches (and user created patches) to really nail the AI. Let's hope it's nailed out of the box this time at release.

 

[Calouste]

Those particular ideas are, but if you don't realize this is not even close to summarizing how combat will shake down, I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't want to argue about civ4 stacks again, but what you've said is equivalent to what could be said for civ4 stacks already being extremely self-evident and intuitive. Namely, you aim to build a bigger army and aim to take out the opponent's targets of interest (their armies or cities, bringing siege units against cities.)

What is actually going to happen, in no small part just thanks to all the smart people on these boards and playing civilization in general, is that many exploits and optimal unit balances and situations will quickly become known, 3 archers and 2 spearmen combos or whatever. The suggestion that the new combat system will eliminate the need for "micromanagement" and "finding ideal combinations" just doesn't hold a lot of water.

The AI in Panzer General and the related Pacific General, Fantasy General etc... was not impressive at all. It was easy to tear to pieces on anything close to level ground - the challenge of the campaigns of course was that you were not on level ground, you were put in challenging situations where you had to make very tactical moves. Yes, they are older games and so I wouldn't suggest the AI in civ5 would be the same as 13 years ago, but certainly that's not an example of an AI coping sufficiently.



Edit for xpost:
You've already mention religion, I would say that we could add that changed civics/social policies, and the diplomacy system, may actually be "missing" by being far less complete or in depth compared to civ4 but we don't know for sure yet.

Huge maps (not confirmed)
Epic speed (not confirmed)
Naval combat (many units removed)
Detailed Victory Conditions (Domination and Conquest made far simpler, Cultural altered/removed)
Specialists and Great people (significantly altered)

Also Espionage was not in vanilla civ4. But vassals and espionage actually were and kinda remain poor systems through BtS so I wouldn't really be missing them

Again, I should add a disclaimer that civ5 could of course be very fun, but really, I have to side every time with those who see clear writing on the wall that the game is not looking to be as in-depth or epic as previous versions. It could simply be "streamlined", but the risk it is "dumbed-down" as has been said before I'd say is there too.

You seem to be confusing altering convoluted features (Cultural win) or removing having to win a game you have already won (are you really not going to win Domination from the point where you have already captured all capitals?) with dumbing down. A lot of people abandon games they feel they have won in Civ4 because playing it out to a win can be rather tedious. Complaints about play in the modern era are legion.

Less naval units is also a good thing IMO. Units having self-transport takes away a lot of the tactical MM that comes with achieving a strategic objective (an invasion on another continent).

Btw, 4 different game speeds have been confirmed.

 

[manu-fan]

I will miss vassals. The vassal system (or at least, how it ended up in BTS after many patches) was really fun.

LOL. Each to his own. I turn off Vassals in every single game I play.

Cheers.

 

[Commander Bello]

In Panzer General II there were indeed a few tricks where you could bait the AI, but nothing major, and it was pretty good at exploiting any mistakes you made. And that was 13 years ago.

As has been said already, PG is fun due to the challenging starting positions you've to take. Baiting enemy fighters is an exploit, which makes winning the scenario much, much easier and that Spitfire or Hurricane sitting top left of the last airfield in the Windsor scenario is infamous.

But I don't want to hi-jack the thread too much...

 

[Tomice]

I will miss vassals. The vassal system (or at least, how it ended up in BTS after many patches) was really fun.

Do we know this is the case? Died puppet state replace vassals? there could be both in civ5.

Not talking about you now Arioch, but some statements here seem strange to me. you guys confuse "not confirmed yet 3 months before release" with "gone". Also, how was acquiring X amount of culture more complex than unlocking a number of social policies? Quite the contrary, Cultural victory is a more interesting path now.