Krill
Deity
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3820
That is the exact thread...be warned, it is over 900 posts long as of this post.
SirPleb, Going for Sid
- Thread starter SirPleb
- Start date
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3820
That is the exact thread...be warned, it is over 900 posts long as of this post.
You were also very candid in that thread and I really value your opinion so thanks.
SirPleb--thanks for your explanation.
By the way, I think this thread has been valuable, for me, regarding civ5. However, as a moderator on this forum, I want to make sure you're ok with this kind of discussion in this thread. It's not a problem to move the civ5 discussion if you wish.
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
I don't mind this discussion being here at all. The original purpose of the thread isn't very likely to have further ongoing discussion
OTOH, if you think recent posts here are of interest to the community at large feel free to move them. I don't know about that, don't have a feel for whether this stuff would add anything to all the talk already going on.
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
I've now skimmed that entire thread. For anyone here who is interested but doesn't want to go through all that, here are direct links to the posts I found of most interest:
Sulla: http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost.php?p=89408&postcount=595
Sirian: http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost.php?p=89586&postcount=696
Kylearan: http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost.php?p=89595&postcount=703
I included Kylearan's reply to Sirian because it very politely says what I might have said somewhat less politely despite my respect for Sirian.
After reading those posts (and many others on the thread) I find myself wondering "What were they thinking?"
If they didn't know they could build an AI which works well with 1UPT, why make that change? (There were other ways to nerf SODs a bit more if that's what they wanted to do. I'm not sure those needed more than a little nerfing anyway.)
And limiting Civ sizes (in terms of claimed land and number of cities) so dramatically? How can that result in epic games of all types, particularly the so-satistying (to at least some of us) I-own-everything games?
I generally put historic feel way below good strategic play options, but some things about Civ5 really feel wrong even to me. 1) Easy free food in ancient times? That is just so wrong. One way or another food should be critical and difficult in early stage Civ play. No one has food to throw around at 2000BC. 2) Limited empire size and city/puppet states playing a large role? How many actual Civs work like that? And again the problem with the fun "I own it all" goal one could reasonably shoot for in earlier versions of Civ. In Civ 5 it seems it will be difficult to even reproduce the level of direct control the British Empire once achieved. 3) Completely removing military stacks? What is wrong with the idea of an empire being able to threaten, and to carry out if necessary, sending a large force to take out a small force with virtually no casualties? Removing stacks entirely just to nerf exploits in previous versions of Civ seems like a cop-out to me, at the cost of an important bit of reality.
Anyway, my comments about historic feel aside, I think Sulla made a lot of cogent points and Sirian did little to address them.
A special point is that it seems the developers committed to a 1UPT approach before working out whether they could build an AI to handle it and that's going to be a big problem now.
If Firaxis puts an unprecedented (in their history) effort into improving the game via free updates it may yet become another good version of Civ. If they don't do that the problems look rather bad. The budget I imagine they allowed for post-release patches isn't likely to address the serious issues.
Duplicate Save.
I would vote to move this entire thread to the Civ 5 Forum (Perhaps with a Mod Explanation Post at the thread beginning)......It's Classic SirPleb and anyways, whoever heard of a 6-year old thread for a game that's been out less than 2 weeks?
Seriously though, SirPleb's and other's reviews of Civ 5 would become "visible" to the Civ 5 community......Most of them are not going to be aware of this "Old-Timers" Civ 3/5 thread!
I agree with you Eman I think it would be a value to the civ community. However, I'm afraid the civ5 trolls will not take too kindly to a civil discussion that disagrees with their opinion. Let them find it if they want valued opinions.
Well, I've been trying to post here for two days and alway got "the server is busy"... Hopefully this will now stick.
Yes, same for me. I would hate to see this "classic" thread becoming a place of mudslinging. I still remember how I studied this thread in Dec 2007 as preparation for COTM43, my first ever Sid game! A nice evening with a cup of tea, a couple of Christmas cakes and a lot of enlightenment. Would future students of the game get the same enjoyment out of this thread, if the end is marred by trolls stomping all over it?
Now back to topic (or rather to "off-topic".... Apparently this thread has now been hijacked for good, but as SirPleb is the main-hijacker, I guess it's ok...) I have been reading a lot of Civ5 reports in the last couple of days, and this game seems indeed full of a) imbalances and ill-thought out game concepts and b) bugs.
If we just take the Sulla/Sirian example, the essence seems to be that the fans are complaining "the AI is not up to the task", upon which Firaxis basically replies "well, you know, AI-programming is very difficult, we tried our best, but unfortunately our best was not good enough..."
So the question now is, what does Fireaxis try to achieve? Just earning some big bucks and then moving on to other things? Or repeating the success story of Civ3 & Civ4, two epic games which even after 9 years (or 5 years respectively) can still be played with enjoyment and have a very alive fan base? Of cause we all hope for the second, but if it is really true that some parts of the game (in particular the AI engine) need to be rewritten, they will probably not assign the necessary budget for that...
So here is my proposal how to solve that predicament: let's urge Fireaxis to make the AI component open-source! Open source has resulted in incredibly great results for example for Linux, and a little game-AI is certainly not as complex and complicated to write as an operating system, is it? So I'm pretty sure that the civ community would quickly fix the broken parts in the game, if it is made open source. Fireaxis could just do the necessary moderating and coordinating and then release the community's work as a patch.
What do they have to loose? Piracy should not be a concern to them, if they don't publish the entire code base.
One more off-topic topic: in the last few days, this thread has turned into some kind of "civ veteran re-union"... SirPleb, Megalou, Arathorn, EMan, Whomp, superslug, AutomatedTeller, bluejay, Krill -- we are looking at some 60+ years of Civfanatics membership! Unfortunately I found the Civfanatics site only in 2007, after playing Civ3 all alone since 2002 (and Civ1/Civ2 since 1992...), so I missed the "Golden Age" of GOTM, SGOTM, HoF, etc. But considering my 18 years of civ-playing, I think I count as a "veteran" myself, and I always wanted to meet other devoted civ fans in person. Does anyone else feel like this? Would something like a "Civfanatics Congress" be interesting for others as well? We could meet some place that has a lot of history (e.g. near Heidelberg there are relics from Roman times, the Great Barbarian Migration, Middle Ages, Absolutism, Napoleonic times, WWI & WWII...
), make day trips to these sites, play a friendly LAN game in the evenings etc...
(Just day-dreaming...)
Lanzelot
However, I'm afraid the civ5 trolls will not take too kindly to a civil discussion that disagrees with their opinion. Let them find it if they want valued opinions.
Yes, same for me. I would hate to see this "classic" thread becoming a place of mudslinging. I still remember how I studied this thread in Dec 2007 as preparation for COTM43, my first ever Sid game! A nice evening with a cup of tea, a couple of Christmas cakes and a lot of enlightenment. Would future students of the game get the same enjoyment out of this thread, if the end is marred by trolls stomping all over it?
Now back to topic (or rather to "off-topic"...
. Apparently this thread has now been hijacked for good, but as SirPleb is the main-hijacker, I guess it's ok...) I have been reading a lot of Civ5 reports in the last couple of days, and this game seems indeed full of a) imbalances and ill-thought out game concepts and b) bugs.If we just take the Sulla/Sirian example, the essence seems to be that the fans are complaining "the AI is not up to the task", upon which Firaxis basically replies "well, you know, AI-programming is very difficult, we tried our best, but unfortunately our best was not good enough..."
So the question now is, what does Fireaxis try to achieve? Just earning some big bucks and then moving on to other things? Or repeating the success story of Civ3 & Civ4, two epic games which even after 9 years (or 5 years respectively) can still be played with enjoyment and have a very alive fan base? Of cause we all hope for the second, but if it is really true that some parts of the game (in particular the AI engine) need to be rewritten, they will probably not assign the necessary budget for that...
So here is my proposal how to solve that predicament: let's urge Fireaxis to make the AI component open-source! Open source has resulted in incredibly great results for example for Linux, and a little game-AI is certainly not as complex and complicated to write as an operating system, is it? So I'm pretty sure that the civ community would quickly fix the broken parts in the game, if it is made open source. Fireaxis could just do the necessary moderating and coordinating and then release the community's work as a patch.
What do they have to loose? Piracy should not be a concern to them, if they don't publish the entire code base.
One more off-topic topic: in the last few days, this thread has turned into some kind of "civ veteran re-union"... SirPleb, Megalou, Arathorn, EMan, Whomp, superslug, AutomatedTeller, bluejay, Krill -- we are looking at some 60+ years of Civfanatics membership! Unfortunately I found the Civfanatics site only in 2007, after playing Civ3 all alone since 2002 (and Civ1/Civ2 since 1992...), so I missed the "Golden Age" of GOTM, SGOTM, HoF, etc. But considering my 18 years of civ-playing, I think I count as a "veteran" myself, and I always wanted to meet other devoted civ fans in person. Does anyone else feel like this? Would something like a "Civfanatics Congress" be interesting for others as well? We could meet some place that has a lot of history (e.g. near Heidelberg there are relics from Roman times, the Great Barbarian Migration, Middle Ages, Absolutism, Napoleonic times, WWI & WWII...
), make day trips to these sites, play a friendly LAN game in the evenings etc...(Just day-dreaming...)
Lanzelot
Well, there is something to be said for Civ5 coming out now rather than after 2 more years of AI developing, if it draws old-timers out of the woodwork and into the open. 
Lanzelot's idea of open code is an interesting one and yes, a space oddity, the strength of the AI and level of testing are probably commercial issues. (Viz. We want to play the game bug-free........Firaxis wants to sell more games.....NOW!!)
Speaking as a former Master-level chessplayer, there's no comparison between the AI levels in chess and Civ. The retail chess games now play at Grand Master level and would kick my butt every time. (I say retail because for a long time companies like IBM have had "Super Computer's" programs that played GM-level chess.)
My guess is that Firaxis made the (commercial) decision to simply accelerate production and give bonus units to the AI (assuming it's the same in Civ 5 as Civ 3), which is a less expensive (as a cost of labor) way of making the AI appear "stronger".
Comparing the retail chess games, AI strength in the past has been the most attractive feature (for the tournament player) and company's bragging rights meant selling more games.........In Civ, there's no other game that's quite like it (thus not the competition), so Firaxis focuses more on graphics and new features.........And a new sequel of CIV means instant $$$$$$$$$$$$'s!!!!!
Speaking as a former Master-level chessplayer, there's no comparison between the AI levels in chess and Civ. The retail chess games now play at Grand Master level and would kick my butt every time. (I say retail because for a long time companies like IBM have had "Super Computer's" programs that played GM-level chess.)
My guess is that Firaxis made the (commercial) decision to simply accelerate production and give bonus units to the AI (assuming it's the same in Civ 5 as Civ 3), which is a less expensive (as a cost of labor) way of making the AI appear "stronger".
Comparing the retail chess games, AI strength in the past has been the most attractive feature (for the tournament player) and company's bragging rights meant selling more games.........In Civ, there's no other game that's quite like it (thus not the competition), so Firaxis focuses more on graphics and new features.........And a new sequel of CIV means instant $$$$$$$$$$$$'s!!!!!
I didn't really understand this......We may have constructive criticism......But, if we're wrong about stuff, why wouldn't we want it pointed out.....And, there's gonna be plenty of disagreement/suggestions anyways......Maybe Firaxis will take note!!?...I'm afraid the civ5 trolls will not take too kindly to a civil discussion that disagrees with their opinion...
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
Good to see SirPleb posting again. :b:
Having read a few of the posts here and linked from RB, I just wanted to say a word of support for Trip. Even though he and I were at odds in CIV development more often than not, I'm sure he wanted critical input on the project given that he invited me.
Real life gave me a convenient excuse, but I probably would have declined anyways. Approaching a game that way is just backwards for fun. I knew going in to CIV that would be the case, but wanted to give something back to the series that had given me so much enjoyment.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other critical and involved players who helped with dev/testing CIV would be in the same boat.
I do want to ask WTF is up with "The Alexman" as Warlord?
Having read a few of the posts here and linked from RB, I just wanted to say a word of support for Trip. Even though he and I were at odds in CIV development more often than not, I'm sure he wanted critical input on the project given that he invited me.
Real life gave me a convenient excuse, but I probably would have declined anyways. Approaching a game that way is just backwards for fun. I knew going in to CIV that would be the case, but wanted to give something back to the series that had given me so much enjoyment.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other critical and involved players who helped with dev/testing CIV would be in the same boat.
I do want to ask WTF is up with "The Alexman" as Warlord?
ThERat
Deity
Nice to see so many 'legends' in this thread. 
Well, I for one bought Civ 5 the moment it came out. Even though I am very well aware of Firaxises inability to produce bug free games, I wanted to know whether Civ 5 gives a new feel to the series.
Having played C3C extensively esp via SG AW games, quite a number of us moved on to Civ 4 (Handy's grumpy old men gang), but pretty soon many of the old folks got tired of various issues with Civ 4. There was a thread started by myself called ' have they killed the fun for warmongers' or sth like this. We got a lot of flak especially from Sirian who basically told us that its our approach to the game that would limit our fun.
One of the real killers in Civ 4 for me was that evil WW. Instead of playing a warmonger game, we were busy fighting war weariness to extreme levels.
I was keen about the new 1upt concept and how it would play out in always war games. I have written a report about an AW game on king level and started another on emperor but have stopped completing my report as severe Civ 5 burnout has started to set in.
Civ 5 plays very slow (units, buildings take so long to complete) and the AI is totally incompetent. It takes AW as a combined AI force is still sth to be reckoned with. I do play without city states in those games as they tilt the balance even more in human favor. However, once Sulla uncovered the might of ICS, the games just collapsed for me. The whole balance seems so off and more or less forces you to play with small cities, totally disregarding terrain. It feels plain wrong to me and makes the game very bland.
Sirian's excuses (this time Sulla 'got it') did remind me quite a bit of the rebuffs we got with Civ 4 and left me smiling. His work on maps does deserve praise though. Unfortunately with terrain mattering so little, who cares about maps in the end.
I have gone back to Civ 3 (to play a mod) and enjoy the game even after so many years. A fast computer makes games now even more enjoyable.
Knowing Firaxis track record, I'd say I have little hope the core problems of Civ 5 will be addressed. They did make their quick bucks I am certain anyway.
Well, I for one bought Civ 5 the moment it came out. Even though I am very well aware of Firaxises inability to produce bug free games, I wanted to know whether Civ 5 gives a new feel to the series.
Having played C3C extensively esp via SG AW games, quite a number of us moved on to Civ 4 (Handy's grumpy old men gang), but pretty soon many of the old folks got tired of various issues with Civ 4. There was a thread started by myself called ' have they killed the fun for warmongers' or sth like this. We got a lot of flak especially from Sirian who basically told us that its our approach to the game that would limit our fun.
One of the real killers in Civ 4 for me was that evil WW. Instead of playing a warmonger game, we were busy fighting war weariness to extreme levels.
I was keen about the new 1upt concept and how it would play out in always war games. I have written a report about an AW game on king level and started another on emperor but have stopped completing my report as severe Civ 5 burnout has started to set in.
Civ 5 plays very slow (units, buildings take so long to complete) and the AI is totally incompetent. It takes AW as a combined AI force is still sth to be reckoned with. I do play without city states in those games as they tilt the balance even more in human favor. However, once Sulla uncovered the might of ICS, the games just collapsed for me. The whole balance seems so off and more or less forces you to play with small cities, totally disregarding terrain. It feels plain wrong to me and makes the game very bland.
Sirian's excuses (this time Sulla 'got it') did remind me quite a bit of the rebuffs we got with Civ 4 and left me smiling. His work on maps does deserve praise though. Unfortunately with terrain mattering so little, who cares about maps in the end.
I have gone back to Civ 3 (to play a mod) and enjoy the game even after so many years. A fast computer makes games now even more enjoyable.
Knowing Firaxis track record, I'd say I have little hope the core problems of Civ 5 will be addressed. They did make their quick bucks I am certain anyway.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
- Messages
- 2,686
Sorry for Civ4 ThERat...
That game was balanced to provide difficulty for well-rounded approaches to the game. Ignoring any of the important areas, or being inflexible in your approach to the situation, would of course make the game more difficult. In Civ III most of the difficulty had to be self-imposed by the player. At release of CIV I could win about 50% of random Deity starts... but only if I went into the game without already determining how I would win. If I go into a game thinking I'm going to roll all the AI with my military and essentially ignore everything else, I'd have to move down to Emperor to have a decent chance.
(I don't know how well this held up after release, as I never played after.)
A lot of that difficulty had to be due to game mechanics though, because the AI can't be reasonably expected to hold their own with a player militarily. WW was one of those game mechanics, which took a lot of work on the part of the player to deal with alongside of the actual fighting. This was to balance the risk:reward for warfare, which I think was the right thing to do rather than leave warfare as the "I WIN" button for a player in any situation. But that's a matter of opinion.
That game was balanced to provide difficulty for well-rounded approaches to the game. Ignoring any of the important areas, or being inflexible in your approach to the situation, would of course make the game more difficult. In Civ III most of the difficulty had to be self-imposed by the player. At release of CIV I could win about 50% of random Deity starts... but only if I went into the game without already determining how I would win. If I go into a game thinking I'm going to roll all the AI with my military and essentially ignore everything else, I'd have to move down to Emperor to have a decent chance.
(I don't know how well this held up after release, as I never played after.)
A lot of that difficulty had to be due to game mechanics though, because the AI can't be reasonably expected to hold their own with a player militarily. WW was one of those game mechanics, which took a lot of work on the part of the player to deal with alongside of the actual fighting. This was to balance the risk:reward for warfare, which I think was the right thing to do rather than leave warfare as the "I WIN" button for a player in any situation. But that's a matter of opinion.
I want to ask the same thing!! I never knew about this until just now...
I think it's just Trip getting back at me for beating him up in Civ3 PBEM.
SirPleb said:
Moonsinger said:
Hmmm... I have to wonder how the AI rates armies... see this one from a Sid game also sometime between 500 AD and 620 AD with maximum opponents.
A few turns later I've managed up to 48 armies, and I still come in "average" to Germany. Sorry if I've thread-jacked this fun read!
I realize this thread is really old, and I don't expect anyone to remember anything. But, I have to wonder if the Aztecs ever landed any units next to Mauch Chunk. Though, do I see that they landed a unit next to St. Regis at some point even though there existed an unoccupied square right next to Cattaraugus?
I know that the AI will land right next to the capital when it can, but if you capital isn't close enough to the coast, can you predict where the AI will land it's units without a lot of island block? Will they always go for the largest city if there exists an unoccupied square next to it?
Dwarven Zerker
Just one more turn Honey!
Gravedigging even more...
Considering the mighty SirPleb's last post was 2 months before your questions, I'd assume you won't get a response. This coming from someone who just finished reading this amazing exploit over the past week.
Yes, it's very useful. Especially for upper level 20k games.
Dwarven Zerker
Just one more turn Honey!
I agree, it's important intel to have. Perhaps setting up a game on a pelago map to test the theory?
I've done it several times in games in the HoF (I think I did this in all of my Sid 20k games, and many if not most of my demi-god and deity 20k games also). Not keep any units in my capital. Keep a force of trebuchets/catapults and attack units near my capital. Block all good landing spots and leave a weak landing spot next to the capital for an AI. And soon enough I have an MGL.
The only issue I recall running into happens when two AIs decide to land on me, and the landing spot gets blocked by one of the AIs.
