Special abilities

[Windsor]

Good point; the more I think about it, the more I wonder if Civ5 has one generic AI that, instead of being governed by variables in an XML file, simply plays to its advantages/disadvantages. If it does, it'll be great for keeping the game interesting (no more knowing beforehand exactly how the AI will react in diplomacy/war), and it'll be a godsend for modders. To create an interesting new civ, they'd just need to give it a good ability/UU/UB, and the AI will sort out the rest (e.g., a mod civ that gets a bonus to research when in a research agreement will be quite the diplomat, and one that gets a SP discount will shoot for Utopia wins); no more tweaking modifiers in newciv.xml until the new civ acts right.

There's no doubt the AI is governed by XML-values. UU/UB/SA is far from enough to create a "personality".

I very much doubt Monty will even think "Hey, my ability encourages me to go to war". Instead it will be "The XML tells me to declare war" and then the gained culture comes as a result of that. Same goes with units. If the unique ability needs an alternative usage, they will probably not be able to exploit it. The XML will tell them to favor the tech and the unit slightly higher than normal, but any advantages they get is just pure luck.

 

[Mallipeep]

Case for India:
As long as you dont build cities too fast you will have the combination of those adventages
1. Larger cities, that get more out of each hammer you used to build this +25% to gold/science/culture w.e. buildings - and that also leads you to
1a. Less buildings/settlers to build per worked tile, more hammers to spend on units/wonders
1b. Less strategic resources needed for buildings (i think i read somewhere that some buildings need resources too)
2. More happiness --> more golden ages (didnt see that plus mentioned for india yet) --> more w.e.. bonus golden ages get
3. Less hammers needed to spend on happiness buildings ( this one is rather neglible tho)
4. May give you cheaper overall Social Policies & Great People ( just found out that these are affected by civ size - question is if city size is in the formluae too)

First three are like "sliders" where if you gain from one more, you get from other two less:
- when your cities are already much larger compared to average you are benefitting mainly from 1.
- when your cities are still growing, are waiting for the +1 foods from farms building - you get the faster golden ages - i.e. benefitting from 2.
- when you are building an army while neglecting happiness building ( which say your enemy would already need to get out of negative happiness) you are benefitting from 3.


So while india is forced to focus on less cities (compared to other nations which can place their cities however they want, or the situation warrants) they still have 3 different ways to utilize their special ability.

The resource grabbing issue is quite a downside tho.

---

All in all, i find all those special abilities wonderful, and will most likely to play every civilization except iroquis ( since i dont like very early combat that much) - which i definately cant say for any eariler versions of civ.
Looking at them i find them yet again radiating pure brilliance that i have seen from every single new feature/system/modification civ5 has - and further bolsters my presumption that civilization 5 is going to be marvellous version of civ to date.

 

[Calouste]

I believe it was in a preview (one of the earlier ones I believe). What he says is correct though, each leader will have varying levels of 'flavors' that influence their victory condition/ strategic planning. Elizabeth, for example, has a strong flavor for naval dominance, but it will be at different levels in each game. Also, leaders who find that their primary strategy is failing will attempt to shift to a backup one. For example, if Napoleon fails at conquest, he'll shift to culture instead of continuing pointless warmongering.

On another note: I find that there are three main 'types' of abilities (with obvious mixtures/degrees).
Type 1: The 'free' bonus. These abilities give less powerful boosts, but don't require you to play in any particular way to take advantage of most of their potential. France, Arabia, and America fall fully under this in my opinion, as they provide useful boosts to any strategy, and do not provide any huge benefits for changing your playstyle.
Type 2: The 'mixed' bonus. These abilities give boosts that will be helpful most/all of the time, but get much stronger if you play to them.
Rome (although this definitely straddles type 1), Egypt, England, Greece, Germany, and the Iroquois (this one definitely approaches type 3) fall under this type IMO.
Type 3: The 'absolute' bonus. These abilities are weak unless you play a specific strategy, in which case they offer grander benefits. Aztecs, China, and India fall under this type. In India's case, it could be actively bad

Don't agree with parts of that. France, Rome and Arabia's bonusses are obviously stronger if you have more cities.

I think we will have to wait with a full appraisal of the abilities until we have more information about the Social Policy tree and probably UUs and UBs. We already know that the German ability seems to go very well with the Honor branch (additional bonusses to fighting Barbarians), the Indian ability goes well with the Tradition branch (extra growth in the capital) and the French and Romans seem to go well with the Liberty branch (cheaper settlers and new cities getting an initial boost).

 

[bjbrains]

Don't agree with parts of that. France, Rome and Arabia's bonusses are obviously stronger if you have more cities.

I think we will have to wait with a full appraisal of the abilities until we have more information about the Social Policy tree and probably UUs and UBs. We already know that the German ability seems to go very well with the Honor branch (additional bonusses to fighting Barbarians), the Indian ability goes well with the Tradition branch (extra growth in the capital) and the French and Romans seem to go well with the Liberty branch (cheaper settlers and new cities getting an initial boost).

I agree that they get stronger with more cities, but not enough to encourage you to build many more than you normally would really. Type 1 isn't "There is no way to get more out of this benefit", but rather "you don't need to shift your strategy to get most of its potential".
It is definitely true that different civs naturally favor policies, and UUs/UBs should have a big impact on how civs play. The musketeer seems to give France an advantage other other armies of the time with its +4 strength.

 

[Calouste]

1. Larger cities, that get more out of each hammer you used to build this +25% to gold/science/culture w.e. buildings -

Unless you have inside information, there is no confirmation yet that Libraries etc work the same as they work in Civ4. The only thing we have seen confirmed so far about a Library is that it give 2 specialist slots.

 

[morss_4]

Unless you have inside information, there is no confirmation yet that Libraries etc work the same as they work in Civ4. The only thing we have seen confirmed so far about a Library is that it give 2 specialist slots.

Given that libraries have done the same thing in all Civ games going back to Civ I I think it's reasonable to assume they do the same thing here. Is it possible they don't? Sure, but there's no real reason to think that's the case until we see evidence for it.

 

[bjbrains]

Considering science and gold work differently, I'd be surprised if their related buildings didn't change as well.

 

[morss_4]

Considering science and gold work differently, I'd be surprised if their related buildings didn't change as well.

I wouldn't.

It's not directly apparent to me that the switch from commerce to gold/science should have any implications for the library or the market.

 

[ShaqFu]

On the topic of France, the more I think about it, the more it seems to be the best REXing (well, Civ5 style REXing) civ so far. Ancien Regime is undoubtedly better the earlier you get it, which encourages lots of early cities, and if radius is still governed by culture it's like Creative in Civ4. The boost to culture also means that you can go deep into Liberty early (grabbing bonuses like the extra starting food) without sacrificing anything later - the accumulated culture from all your Liberty-fueled cities will have the tree pay for itself. You can Liberty your way to a massive empire, then when it comes time for Renaissance SPs, you won't be playing catch up. And note that those shiny Renn SPs unlock around the same time as Musketeers....

There's no doubt the AI is governed by XML-values. UU/UB/SA is far from enough to create a "personality".

I very much doubt Monty will even think "Hey, my ability encourages me to go to war". Instead it will be "The XML tells me to declare war" and then the gained culture comes as a result of that. Same goes with units. If the unique ability needs an alternative usage, they will probably not be able to exploit it. The XML will tell them to favor the tech and the unit slightly higher than normal, but any advantages they get is just pure luck.

Oh well, a man can dream, and there's always Civ6 Although I am curious, then, how Firaxis managed to give the AI their respective flavors without an outrageous number of variables. I can understand some preordained behavior if it's on a binary scale (peace/war, diplomat/isolationist, production/gold, expansion/development), but something complex like "emphasize naval development" doesn't really model well in that system.

 

[Calouste]

I agree that they get stronger with more cities, but not enough to encourage you to build many more than you normally would really. Type 1 isn't "There is no way to get more out of this benefit", but rather "you don't need to shift your strategy to get most of its potential".
It is definitely true that different civs naturally favor policies, and UUs/UBs should have a big impact on how civs play. The musketeer seems to give France an advantage other other armies of the time with its +4 strength.

I think there will be more of a concious decision between horizontal and vertical expansion in Civ5 than there was in Civ4. In Civ4 you ran into happiness limits quite early, so building new cities was the only way to make your empire grow. In Civ5, with global happiness, it works somewhat differently. Say you got a Gold resource in both Civ4 and Civ5. In Civ4, you would get most milage out if it by building more cities, as you would be able to grow more cities bigger. In Civ5, it adds 5 happiness to your global happiness, so you if you have 5 valuable hexes around your capital that you didn't have the happiness yet to work, it would make more sense to use that 5 happiness to work those 5 hexes rather than found a new city in a more mediocre location and work 5 mediocre hexes there. Even with hexes of comparable value, it would probably still be better to work them in the capital as you would have more bonusses there. For the French and the Romans however, there would be a bonus for founding a new city which would shift the emphasis.

In general btw, with seemingly more resources in Civ5 and the new happiness system, I think the decision to build Settlers and found new cities will be determined basically by when you run out of good tiles to work in your existing cities rather than by running out of happiness to work any tiles at all like it was in Civ4. Resource grab of course still plays a part, although less, considering a city in Civ5 has potentially access to 50% more tiles than in Civ4.

 

[Altaria87]

There is one thing confusing me here.
All of the Civilization's Powers are either realistic in regards that Civilizaiton, or at least thematically appropriate. For example, Sacrificial Captives makes perfect sense for the Aztecs, and Sun Never Sets, while not exactly realistic, still fits with England's 'Naval' theme.
So, what I am asking is about Manifest Destiny- the buying tiles bit makes sense, but +1 vision? Seriously, in what way is +1 Vision realistic for America, or in any way tied thematically to America?

 

[Calouste]

There is one thing confusing me here.
All of the Civilization's Powers are either realistic in regards that Civilizaiton, or at least thematically appropriate. For example, Sacrificial Captives makes perfect sense for the Aztecs, and Sun Never Sets, while not exactly realistic, still fits with England's 'Naval' theme.
So, what I am asking is about Manifest Destiny- the buying tiles bit makes sense, but +1 vision? Seriously, in what way is +1 Vision realistic for America, or in any way tied thematically to America?

Thematically tied into the explorers and frontiermen of the West I think. Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Lewis and Clark, people who put the unexplored interior of the US rapidly on the maps.

 

[duckstab]

That was my thought - scouts will be able to fogbust more quickly which leads to quicker identification of new city sites. Also might make it easier for settlers to avoid animals/barbs.

 

[Tregon]

You have already had a response to this, but in addition to what ShaqFu said, the traits of the civs will differ each game, but will be close to how they were the previous time. For an example, which I actually heard, stated that Napoleon's willingness to declare war is an 8, but each game it can change, going anywhere from 6 to 10 (1 being never declaring war pretty much, 10 being always ready to declare).

I forget where I heard that, I think it was a podcast but maybe not.

And like it has been mentioned, Elizabeth deciding not to go for shipbuilding in Kyrgystan does not change fact that she has been totally, absolutely gimped. Her only benefit above rest of civs was faster ships. No ships, no ability. One of her unique units is ship. Again it falls out.

I like the analysis by bjbrains. Some of the abilities force nations to certain mold or they are taking handicap. England on map with minimal ocean will be horribly abused by her opponents who have military abilities.

Aztecs on island map will not gain advantage from their ability until they manage to reach someone else.

For Germany not hunting (and perhaps farming) barbarians is bad idea.

It is not the leaders which matter here, but limitations set by abilities.
Abilities are good, yes. They give you something to give you an edge on opponents when used well. But at the same time they have ability to handicap you because they can be too specific.

If we look at traits in Civ4... We have for example defensive. It did not push you to turtle, it could be useful in aggressive action as well. Same way offensive could be used even if forced to defend.

 

[bjbrains]

The main comment I have is that you overestimate the absence of a relevant ability. The abilities aren't so strong that Elizabeth would just "lose". There's more than enough variance in civ to keep a disadvantaged civ in the running, the same is (apparently) true of the AI.

 

[Calouste]

And like it has been mentioned, Elizabeth deciding not to go for shipbuilding in Kyrgystan does not change fact that she has been totally, absolutely gimped. Her only benefit above rest of civs was faster ships. No ships, no ability. One of her unique units is ship. Again it falls out.

I like the analysis by bjbrains. Some of the abilities force nations to certain mold or they are taking handicap. England on map with minimal ocean will be horribly abused by her opponents who have military abilities.

Aztecs on island map will not gain advantage from their ability until they manage to reach someone else.

For Germany not hunting (and perhaps farming) barbarians is bad idea.

It is not the leaders which matter here, but limitations set by abilities.
Abilities are good, yes. They give you something to give you an edge on opponents when used well. But at the same time they have ability to handicap you because they can be too specific.

If we look at traits in Civ4... We have for example defensive. It did not push you to turtle, it could be useful in aggressive action as well. Same way offensive could be used even if forced to defend.

Unless you give all the Civs exactly the same units and abilities (back to Civ1 that is), some are always going to have advantages and disadvantages based on the map and their starting location. You'll always have maritime Civs (Civ4 had 3) because they add flavor and of course they will be at a disadvantage on some maps but at an advantage on others. I'd rather see AIs with a fixed ability and more freedom to play than with the hard coded personalities in Civ4 that were easily exploited by high level players.

 

[Tregon]

The main comment I have is that you overestimate the absence of a relevant ability. The abilities aren't so strong that Elizabeth would just "lose". There's more than enough variance in civ to keep a disadvantaged civ in the running, the same is (apparently) true of the AI.

I doubt that I overestimate it.
I am simply saying that some are too specific and you either must play according to them or get handicap.

Elizabeth would not just "lose", but would have to play with handicap. Useless ability and loss of one UU.

It can be decisive factor if we have two equally strong human players competing.
I don't want to just stay in competition, I want to compete for top spot. And if abilities become handicaps it just gets that much more difficult.

Against AI it most likely is irrelevant. AI which can beat human in games like this are just too difficult to program.

Unless you give all the Civs exactly the same units and abilities (back to Civ1 that is), some are always going to have advantages and disadvantages based on the map and their starting location. You'll always have maritime Civs (Civ4 had 3) because they add flavor and of course they will be at a disadvantage on some maps but at an advantage on others. I'd rather see AIs with a fixed ability and more freedom to play than with the hard coded personalities in Civ4 that were easily exploited by high level players.

As said, I do not wish to see copies of one another, but abilities which are less situation dependent. Yes, it would not be easy but I think it could be done.

Being maritime civ should not mean that if you have little ocean out of 3 advantages you get over others, 2 have just disappeared.



Either way, I'll drop this issue now or this will get pointless and repetitive debate "yes it is" "no it isn't" which would be boring.

 

[12agnar0k]

but +1 vision? Seriously, in what way is +1 Vision realistic for America, or in any way tied thematically to America?

Yeah your absolutely right, in life, America & Vision, just don't go together, but it's fine for gameplay reasons.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It makes some sense for historical reasons. Maybe not today, though.

 

[Schuesseled]

well +1 vision is better balanced than having 25% gold tile purchasing bonus and something else like wonder production bonus or a culture bonus.

something good with something ok.