Spiritual successor to Alpha Centauri?

[Naokaukodem]

It's not the same thing, upgrades cost gold, can be made whenever provided we have the correct tech, and change the appearance of the unit. Promotion are just abilities gained with actual combat.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not the same thing, upgrades cost gold, can be made whenever provided we have the correct tech, and change the appearance of the unit. Promotion are just abilities gained with actual combat.

Well, in Civ we have unit upgrades (change appearance and base stats) and promotions (add specialization, don't change appearance). In CBE we have unit tiers (change appearance and base stats) and perks (add specialization, presumably don't change appearance).

Looks quite logical to me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, in Civ we have unit upgrades (change appearance and base stats) and promotions (add specialization, don't change appearance). In CBE we have unit tiers (change appearance and base stats) and perks (add specialization, presumably don't change appearance).

Looks quite logical to me.

Except that you get the perks at the tiers...
Which implies you get them with tech/spending like upgrades.

This means that they haven't described a method that combat improves your troops

 

[Darsnan]

I'm certain many Alpha Centauri fans got extremely excited about the announcement of Civilization: Beyond Earth. Legal issues aside, could this be the long awaited spiritual successor to Alpha Centauri?

At a very high level, then if someone were to interpret the approach of Civ 5 being the spiritual successor to the previous Civ iterations, then I'd say no, BE is not the spiritual successor to AC, as it isn't named Alpha Centauri, doesn't have the Planetmind, fungus, mindworms, monoliths, Factions, Progenitors, etc.
However if someone were to take the approach of BE being in the same vein as previous games such as SMAC and Pandora in that they are all planetary sci-fi 4X TBS's, then I'd say yes, this is the spiritual successor to AC, Pandora, and any other games in the same vein.

Overall I am glad the developers are not just taking the same game and updating it, and that this is a new game (and from what I've read so far, this is the opinion I am forming on the subject). It should be interesting as more information is released over the next few months and we see how the game takes shape. Should be interesting!

D

 

[Willem]

It's not the same thing, upgrades cost gold, can be made whenever provided we have the correct tech, and change the appearance of the unit. Promotion are just abilities gained with actual combat.

You're making an assumption. I've read nothing about requiring gold or changing unit appearance. The only difference I see from Promotions is that they become available through tech advances rather than combat, which is not really all that different. At any rate, there will be no Workshop involved. Changes will most likely be made in the field the same as with Promotions. And again, I mentioned "more like", not "exactly the same as". Or do you just not bother to read people's posts?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Except that you get the perks at the tiers...
Which implies you get them with tech/spending like upgrades.

This means that they haven't described a method that combat improves your troops

I assume there are perks taken from techs and perks from experience. First are taken for all units of the same type, second are unique to each unit. In Civ there are promotions taken from a lot of sources like embarkation, etc. They are listed the same.

 

[theblitz]

That distinction has already been taken, Beyond Earth will be a Johnny-come-lately in that regard.

http://pandora.proxy-studios.com/

While it wanted to be the spiritual successor to SMAC, it fell very far short. It was not very good.

 

[Fabio1701]

I assume there are perks taken from techs and perks from experience. First are taken for all units of the same type, second are unique to each unit. In Civ there are promotions taken from a lot of sources like embarkation, etc. They are listed the same.

I sure hope one of the perks/upgrades/modules/promotions/watevs are nerve gas and other unconventional weapons.... I do miss those atrocities! And hopefully defensive perks to match, like gas masks and what not. It would make the unit more expensive but give defence against unconventional weapons.

 

[Rubin]

At a very high level, then if someone were to interpret the approach of Civ 5 being the spiritual successor to the previous Civ iterations, then I'd say no, BE is not the spiritual successor to AC, as it isn't named Alpha Centauri, doesn't have the Planetmind, fungus, mindworms, monoliths, Factions, Progenitors, etc.
However if someone were to take the approach of BE being in the same vein as previous games such as SMAC and Pandora in that they are all planetary sci-fi 4X TBS's, then I'd say yes, this is the spiritual successor to AC, Pandora, and any other games in the same vein.

Overall I am glad the developers are not just taking the same game and updating it, and that this is a new game (and from what I've read so far, this is the opinion I am forming on the subject). It should be interesting as more information is released over the next few months and we see how the game takes shape. Should be interesting!

D

You are being unusually cautious and subtle, Darsnan. My current opinion is that Civ:BE will be in the "Alpha Centauri Light" category--both in gameplay and subject-matter. In other words, Civilization: Beyond Earth will have to be a really good game on its own--be it different or similar to SMAC/X--in order to pass as a successor. Firaxis' XCOM reboot was, uhm, ok, but it never really hit that high note. Ken Levine's BioShock falls into the same category. Financial triumphs perhaps; worthy successors not so much

SMAC/X is similar to both the original X-COM and the System Shock series, in that the game has an abundance of flaws on many different levels. Terraforming balance is lacking, the AI is lacking, research advancement is gimmicky, etc., etc. And I recently realized that the diplomatic modifiers from Social Engineering don't make sense from a gameplay perspective, in that the modifiers don't have an actual gameplay correlate. This is very unlike ideologies in Civilization 5, where your choice directly affects other players, hence validating the diplomatic modifiers. So, there's definitely plenty of room to improve the Alpha Centauri concept, whether it's a reboot or a new take on the basic premises.

I sure hope one of the perks/upgrades/modules/promotions/watevs are nerve gas and other unconventional weapons.... I do miss those atrocities! And hopefully defensive perks to match, like gas masks and what not. It would make the unit more expensive but give defence against unconventional weapons.

Although I deem it likely we'll see unconventional weapons, I fear atrocities won't return. The Civilization franchise has moved away from "negative" modifiers when dealing with ethics--with the exception of broken promises (and genocide). Pollution, Global Warming, negative Government/Social Engineering modifiers, negative Goody Hut results, etc. are all gone. Everything is positive (or neutral at worst). I don't even think nuclear warfare in Civilization 5 incurs any specific negatives.

 

[Darsnan]

You are being unusually cautious and subtle, Darsnan. My current opinion…

Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world!

My current opinion is that Civ:BE will be in the "Alpha Centauri Light" category--both in gameplay and subject-matter. In other words, Civilization: Beyond Earth will have to be a really good game on its own--be it different or similar to SMAC/X--in order to pass as a successor. Firaxis' XCOM reboot was, uhm, ok, but it never really hit that high note. Ken Levine's BioShock falls into the same category. Financial triumphs perhaps; worthy successors not so much

I haven’t played the new XCOM yet. I saw your comments in the XCOM thread here and you were relatively lukewarm towards it, so I’m holding out till its “complete” and on sale, and then I’ll pick it up.

As for BE, why I like your comment regarding that this is your current opinion on the subject matter. Its still too early to tell how this is going to end up. As time progresses and we get more info the picture should become clearer. So I’ll just add that my current opinion is that this is not the spiritual successor to SMAC. As time progresses and more information becomes available I’m sure the debates regarding this will rage on in this forum, probably up to (and after) the BE release. I do seem to be enjoying the speculation aspect at this phase – its fun daydreaming about all of the possibilities from the various tidbits that have been offered to date.

SMAC/X is similar to both the original X-COM and the System Shock series, in that the game has an abundance of flaws on many different levels. Terraforming balance is lacking, the AI is lacking, research advancement is gimmicky, etc., etc. And I recently realized that the diplomatic modifiers from Social Engineering don't make sense from a gameplay perspective, in that the modifiers don't have an actual gameplay correlate. This is very unlike ideologies in Civilization 5, where your choice directly affects other players, hence validating the diplomatic modifiers. So, there's definitely plenty of room to improve the Alpha Centauri concept, whether it's a reboot or a new take on the basic premises.

I haven’t played Civ 5 for a couple years now (not since Spatzimaus’s Alpha Centauri mod became unplayable), so I can’t really comment significantly on the above in regards to the Civ 5 aspect other than that (at least in vanilla Civ 5) there was constant warfare: the AIs bled units left and right, and this appears to be a hack in that it was at least partially associated with purposely trying to keep the AI unit-count down so as to avoid bottlenecking units on the map (i.e. congestion). Did the constant warfare make sense from a gameplay perspective? I didn’t think so. As far as the AC observations are concerned, yes, overall these are true (except for diplomacy, but I’m not going to nitpick), as well as the issues with the SMAC combat AI: you need just look at the “Map of Planet” provided with the game to see how the developers tried to artificially compensate for the AIs tendency to dribble units at you – by providing lots of bottlenecks and long isthmus on the map this then artificially bunched units together to give the semblance that the AI was coordinating its attacks and purposely group-rushing you.

Although I deem it likely we'll see unconventional weapons, I fear atrocities won't return. The Civilization franchise has moved away from "negative" modifiers when dealing with ethics--with the exception of broken promises (and genocide). Pollution, Global Warming, negative Government/Social Engineering modifiers, negative Goody Hut results, etc. are all gone. Everything is positive (or neutral at worst). I don't even think nuclear warfare in Civilization 5 incurs any specific negatives.

Two things: IIRC when I reviewed the vanilla Civ5 xml’s, there were negative GoodyHut results in the associated xml – these options were just commented out (i.e. they were available if someone wanted to mod them in). And as far as Civ 5 nukes are concerned, that was horrible in the future eras that Spatzimaus had created: there was no balance here, no “interesting choices” to make. The only choice was build-em and sling-em, and the games devolved into nukular slugfests (and if you didn’t have uranium, then it was game over). It will be interesting to see how the developers ensure that this does not happen in BE.

D

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, in Civ we have unit upgrades (change appearance and base stats) and promotions (add specialization, don't change appearance). In CBE we have unit tiers (change appearance and base stats) and perks (add specialization, presumably don't change appearance).

Looks quite logical to me.

What's looking so logical ? I don't see any logic in your post.

You're making an assumption. I've read nothing about requiring gold or changing unit appearance. The only difference I see from Promotions is that they become available through tech advances rather than combat, which is not really all that different. At any rate, there will be no Workshop involved. Changes will most likely be made in the field the same as with Promotions. And again, I mentioned "more like", not "exactly the same as". Or do you just not bother to read people's posts?

I'm not making an assumption at all as I'm refering to the vocabulary commonly used in the Civ series, and I must say that it makes sense. I saw somewhere the appearence of units would change in Civ : BE, with presumably an upgrade path. Not a big deal, I just ticked on your word "promotion" that's all.

 

[beetle]

I recently realized that the diplomatic modifiers from Social Engineering don't make sense from a gameplay perspective, in that the modifiers don't have an actual gameplay correlate. This is very unlike ideologies in Civilization 5, where your choice directly affects other players, hence validating the diplomatic modifiers. So, there's definitely plenty of room to improve the Alpha Centauri concept, whether it's a reboot or a new take on the basic premises.

Yes, plenty of room to improve SMAC concepts and game mechanics, but could you explain a bit more about your assertion about modifiers from Social Engineering not having a gameplay correlate? Because I think I respectfully disagree, but I would like to be sure that I understand. Again, SMAC was not perfect, but I appreciated having to balance those social engineering choices, some of which was annoying foes.

 

[Rubin]

Yes, plenty of room to improve SMAC concepts and game mechanics, but could you explain a bit more about your assertion about modifiers from Social Engineering not having a gameplay correlate? Because I think I respectfully disagree, but I would like to be sure that I understand. Again, SMAC was not perfect, but I appreciated having to balance those social engineering choices, some of which was annoying foes.

I'm talking about diplomatic modifiers. If I recall correctly, when playing Morgan and enacting Free Market economy you automatically receive a negative diplomatic modifier with the Gaians. There is no gameplay correlate to this diplomatic modifier. Dierdre does not receive more drones in her cities, nor is she seeing a drop in bureaucratic efficiency. The Social Engineering mechanic simply does not affect other factions.

The Culture/Tourism mechanic in Civilization 5 does affect other civilizations when adopting an ideology; causing significant diplomatic tension. The general Social Policy "skill tree" mechanic is rather uninspired, though In Civ:BE we'll probably see skill trees replacing both Social Engineering and the Design Workshop.

 

[beetle]

This is not the aspect that Civ5 has refined and improved over SMAC, I am just asserting that the seeds were there.

I'm talking about diplomatic modifiers. If I recall correctly, when playing Morgan and enacting Free Market economy you automatically receive a negative diplomatic modifier with the Gaians.

It was any faction enacting Free Market economy that would piss off Diedre. Each AI controlled faction had an SE choice that got positive relations, and one that caused negative relations. I very much miss that stable game-to-game aspect of AI personalities, and wish Civ5 had something similar. Even with BNW where the late game choices have a strong impact, the AIs will switch things up game-to-game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is not the aspect that Civ5 has refined and improved over SMAC, I am just asserting that the seeds were there.



It was any faction enacting Free Market economy that would piss off Diedre. Each AI controlled faction had an SE choice that got positive relations, and one that caused negative relations. I very much miss that stable game-to-game aspect of AI personalities, and wish Civ5 had something similar. Even with BNW where the late game choices have a strong impact, the AIs will switch things up game-to-game.

The point was there was no good Reason for Free Marketers to piss off Diedre.

Unlike in CivV when someone of a different Ideology
1. Is going to cause your people to be unhappy if they Pressure you
2. Is difficult to Culturally beat (-34%)
3. means you miss out on Economic Union/Cultural Revolution bonuses

(#1 being the big one)

 

[Darsnan]

The point was there was no good Reason for Free Marketers to piss off Diedre.

This is not correct for the following two reasons:

1) Free Market represents the raping of Planet's resources. A good example of this ideology is given in the SP for the Merchant Exchange. This is bound to enflame any Green, especially the ultra-Green Gaians.

2) This was a fundamental in-game mechanic for SMACX in regards to ideological polar opposites. Another good example of polar opposites is the Peace Keepers versus Hive: if the Peace Keepers (or anyone) ran Democracy, Chairman Yang and his minions were going to come calling, and it wouldn't be for a social visit. This was the way the game was designed, to include Factional preferencing and Social Engineering.

As a Social Experiment, try modifying all the SMAC Factions to have the same SE preferences, and then in-game run those same settings, and see what you get. I did do this, and everyone loved me, and there was no war. Very boring, and very telling in regards to how the game was programmed.

D

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is not correct for the following two reasons:

1) Free Market represents the raping of Planet's resources. A good example of this ideology is given in the SP for the Merchant Exchange. This is bound to enflame any Green, especially the ultra-Green Gaians.

2) This was a fundamental in-game mechanic for SMACX in regards to ideological polar opposites. Another good example of polar opposites is the Peace Keepers versus Hive: if the Peace Keepers (or anyone) ran Democracy, Chairman Yang and his minions were going to come calling, and it wouldn't be for a social visit. This was the way the game was designed, to include Factional preferencing and Social Engineering.

As a Social Experiment, try modifying all the SMAC Factions to have the same SE preferences, and then in-game run those same settings, and see what you get. I did do this, and everyone loved me, and there was no war. Very boring, and very telling in regards to how the game was programmed.

D

That is the behavior...

If a Human player is playing Diedre, they have no gameplay reason to attack the Free Marketers

If a Human player is playing Yang, they have no gameplay reason to attack the Democrats

For an AI player to behave differently makes them more of a role player.. which is one way to do it, but that means the engineering options are a way to manipulate the AI that you can't with a human.

With BNW Ideologies...

If a Human player is choosing Freedom, they have a gameplay reason to attack Order, Autocracy players
1. Those players can cause me unhappiness just by existing [and generating culture]

2. Trade routes or Open borders with those players can increase that unhappiness

3. Those players are likely to try and vote in World Ideologies that cause me more unhappiness (so I want to take away their CS allies)

4. If I choose the Economic Union tenet, then I get less of a benefit with my trade routes to them.

5. It is harder for me to beat them purely culturally


Those factors are all there regardless of whether I am Human or AI, and whether the other player is Human or AI, they are game mechanics (possibly better term than gameplay)

 

[Darsnan]

Ah, OK. You are going to have to forgive me - I never played BNW (I only owned vanilla Civ 5) so have no clue what you were talking about in this regards.

D

 

[Mustakrakish]

That is the behavior...

If a Human player is playing Diedre, they have no gameplay reason to attack the Free Marketers

If a Human player is playing Yang, they have no gameplay reason to attack the Democrats

For an AI player to behave differently makes them more of a role player.. which is one way to do it, but that means the engineering options are a way to manipulate the AI that you can't with a human.

With BNW Ideologies...

If a Human player is choosing Freedom, they have a gameplay reason to attack Order, Autocracy players
1. Those players can cause me unhappiness just by existing [and generating culture]

2. Trade routes or Open borders with those players can increase that unhappiness

3. Those players are likely to try and vote in World Ideologies that cause me more unhappiness (so I want to take away their CS allies)

4. If I choose the Economic Union tenet, then I get less of a benefit with my trade routes to them.

5. It is harder for me to beat them purely culturally


Those factors are all there regardless of whether I am Human or AI, and whether the other player is Human or AI, they are game mechanics (possibly better term than gameplay)

I prefer both of this. I want them to be more of a role players (having their beliefs, stances, choices etc.) and have game mechanics (as you called it) to have reasons to stand behind those role behaviors.

 

[beetle]

If a Human player is playing Diedre, they have no gameplay reason to attack the Free Marketers
If a Human player is playing Yang, they have no gameplay reason to attack the Democrats

I understand where you are coming from now, thanks for explaining.

As SickFak writes, I too want both: for the AI factions to be strong role players and for there to be game mechanics supporting those role behaviors. But frankly, if I had to choose, I would pick SMAC role playing over BNW mechanics.