Sullla crazy story

[Morningcalm]

Sulla and Tom Chick were overly harsh in their assessment of Civ V I think, but I agreed with their overall points too. It was really annoying to control and move a carpet of doom, the AI was poor at handling it, and the game had too few interesting decisions compared to IV. For one thing, managing the economy didn't require as much finesse. I remember that the base game Civ V allowed ranged units to capture cities, and Satellites didn't reveal the world map until a later patch. Ugh.

While V is better now, it still has that problem of just having too many turns where all you do is press Next Turn. Civ IV always had something to look at and decide on almost every turn. It will undoubtedly be the best Civ game for at least a while despite some flaws (spaghetti roads, annoying espionage/corporation system, etc.)

 

[Bast]

Civ IV is one of the greatest games ever. I hope Civ VI can match it.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I much prefer V to IV, and his rants on V went way overboard. So I certainly wouldn't care for him to be involved with VI.

My main problem is mainly that his rants were just overly emotional. Yes, the issues mentioned were genuine issues but his strong stance turned it from criticism to diatribe and clouded his views reviewing BNW because it was no longer a genuine evaluation and more "I would have changed this, they didn't change this".

This said, I hope he comes around with Civ6, even if I don't share his stance on Civ5, the Civ community is better off with more people doing keen analyses of the game.

 

[skyclad]

My main problem is mainly that his rants were just overly emotional. Yes, the issues mentioned were genuine issues but his strong stance turned it from criticism to diatribe and clouded his views reviewing BNW because it was no longer a genuine evaluation and more "I would have changed this, they didn't change this".

This said, I hope he comes around with Civ6, even if I don't share his stance on Civ5, the Civ community is better off with more people doing keen analyses of the game.

I thought his BNW critique was fair and well written. http://www.sullla.com/Civ5/bnwreview.html

He makes several detailed points and does not get personal. Well you can tell he really loves civ4 but who doesn't

 

[OnceAKing]

I hop civ 6 is not constantly compared to v or IV. I mean I get it, if you're spending $60 to $80 on a new game it better be good but...

If you want rehash the same game design year after year.... Go to EA or Ubisoft...


I'd much rather have PC games that reinvent the wheel and fail then ones that give me a glorified expansion pack for the price of a new game, especially if it's been what 6 years.


Plus I get that AI struggle with stacks. But seriously stacks of doom was so untactical and nuanced. Now that we've seen the light, I'd skip a game that went back to that. I think adding support units will strike the right balance

 

[stiiknafuulia]

The AI must be able to use 1upt in Civ VI, or I won't buy it (unless I'll get heavily into multiplayer). The reason I don't play Civ V anymore is largely because the AI is so clueless with 1upt that all the other systems of the game become effectively pointless. Why try to get to space or win by culture when I could simply use bowmen (or Frigates...) to conquer the whole world (i.e., its capitals )? The only reasons are roleplay and/or avoidance of the massive micromanagement that the dull and predictable conquest would require. Working stacks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken 1upt, imo.

 

[Nikolai II]

Sullla in Civ6 dev? People must be smoking something good.

 

[ShaggyCan]

If it should be anyone, it should be Gazebo. I'm sure they stole a bunch of his mod for VI At least every CiV patch/expansion seemed to.

Also Sulla would be an amazing leader for Rome. Kinda tired of jumping from Julius to Octavian. Julius's uncle Marius would be awesome. It would be nice to portray them as a republic for a change.

 

[Xen]

Sulla the Civ commentator I think is largely demonized as being childish for making very salient points, particularly in his BTS review. At first I was vaguely hostile to it, but over time Ive come to agree with all of his points.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla as a leader for Rome though is MOST UNWELCOME. Give me Marius, Scipio or if you want some real fun of the Republic working as intended, Cincinnatus. (I would LOVE to see what unique bonsses he would give)

But Sulla? Terrible- he was very much the WORST thing that could have happened in the late Republic.

 

[rastak]

Sullla in Civ6 dev? People must be smoking something good.

I would guess he burned more bridges at Firaxis than the Germans at the end of WWII.

 

[Japper007]

There are no signs of him online since april

While he hasn't posted on his own site or here at CFC, he hasn't been inactive online at all

In fact he is currently in a civ 4 pitboss game at Realms Beyond, last post is marked today (http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=252)

 

[footslogger]

The reason I don't play Civ V anymore is largely because the AI is so clueless with 1upt that all the other systems of the game become effectively pointless.

Me too. And I must say that rereading Sulla's perceptive analysis of why 1UPT cannot work in a civ game alarms me anew about how it will function in civ 6. Okay, adjustments to it have been made, but is that just tinkering with an inherently flawed system? We'll soon see. We know very little about combat in civ 6 as yet. We do know that barbarians will be more of a threat in the early game, which is encouraging but not much of a guide to AI combat effectiveness in general. There are so many new features in civ 6 which I really like the sound of (and which make me think, Of course, why was that never done before!) that it will be a great shame if once again poor combat AI ruins the whole game.

 

[Depravo]

I'd much rather have PC games that reinvent the wheel and fail then ones that give me a glorified expansion pack for the price of a new game, especially if it's been what 6 years.

Wish there were more like you.

There is a lamentable reactionary streak running through the fanbase of every well-established franchise that clings to old systems like mother's teats, even when a change is almost unarguably for the better, like the introduction of hexes over a square grid.

I like the direction Civ 6 seems to be taking, but the field is still open for someone to make a game as revolutionary as the original Civ was in its time.

 

[skyclad]

Wish there were more like you.

There is a lamentable reactionary streak running through the fanbase of every well-established franchise that clings to old systems like mother's teats, even when a change is almost unarguably for the better, like the introduction of hexes over a square grid.

I like the direction Civ 6 seems to be taking, but the field is still open for someone to make a game as revolutionary as the original Civ was in its time.

I have to this day not seen anybody complain about hexes! But about half the map being unsettled in 1950, 1upt that the AI cannot handle and that gives you a seizure after a successful war trying to move 12 units around, unresponsive UI etc.
Everything new is not good, and its a shame to throw out old learned lessons.

 

[Babri]

I have to this day not seen anybody complain about hexes! But about half the map being unsettled in 1950, 1upt that the AI cannot handle and that gives you a seizure after a successful war trying to move 12 units around, unresponsive UI etc.
Everything new is not good, and its a shame to throw out old learned lessons.

You should give a try to CBP mod. It addresses a lot of your complaints (encourages expansion, smart AI, more interesting civ uniques, better happiness system etc). It shows that in many ways ciV isn't as flawed as naysayers call it.

Sent from my HTC Desire 820s dual sim using Tapatalk

 

[Pepo]

Wish there were more like you.

There is a lamentable reactionary streak running through the fanbase of every well-established franchise that clings to old systems like mother's teats, even when a change is almost unarguably for the better, like the introduction of hexes over a square grid.

So tell me which aspect of Civ V did it better than Civ IV? From your statement I assume that you think that Civ V is better than Civ IV. Tell me then how citizen=science is better than a commerce system. Tell me how 1upt , a system that the AI can't play , is better than SOD in a Civ game. Tell me how building four cities for all the game is better than having a game where you are actually expanding (it is a 4X game remember, not a 4 city one). How diplomacy is better if even taking one city would mean getting your long standing allies at your gates; how GH is even a good system against expansion

Thinking that Civ iv is better is not reactionary, is accepting that the system in Civ Iv is much more depth than the one in Civ V. And yet many of us (people who prefer 4 over 5) want a better combat system ,not based on 1upt nor SoD ;want a economy system which it is depth enough to allow multiple strategies; we want a diplomacy that works and it isn't exploitable. We aren't reactionaries; we just know that Civ V was a huge step back compare to Civ IV. And if some of us are pessimistic about Civ VI, it is because it isn't "revolutionary" enough, because it still have a lot of the features that Civ V had. Civ Iv was revolutionary. Civ V was revolutionary. Civ VI isn't

 

[Bast]

So tell me which aspect of Civ V did it better than Civ IV? From your statement I assume that you think that Civ V is better than Civ IV. Tell me then how citizen=science is better than a commerce system. Tell me how 1upt , a system that the AI can't play , is better than SOD in a Civ game. Tell me how building four cities for all the game is better than having a game where you are actually expanding (it is a 4X game remember, not a 4 city one). How diplomacy is better if even taking one city would mean getting your long standing allies at your gates; how GH is even a good system against expansion

Thinking that Civ iv is better is not reactionary, is accepting that the system in Civ Iv is much more depth than the one in Civ V. And yet many of us (people who prefer 4 over 5) want a better combat system ,not based on 1upt nor SoD ;want a economy system which it is depth enough to allow multiple strategies; we want a diplomacy that works and it isn't exploitable. We aren't reactionaries; we just know that Civ V was a huge step back compare to Civ IV. And if some of us are pessimistic about Civ VI, it is because it isn't "revolutionary" enough, because it still have a lot of the features that Civ V had. Civ Iv was revolutionary. Civ V was revolutionary. Civ VI isn't

I think they realise that some things don't work (1UPT, Global happiness etc) and have attempted to change it which is encouraging.

 

[Depravo]

From your statement I assume that you think that Civ V is better than Civ IV. ...

Wrongo. I have no idea where you got that from.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I have seen literally one person lament the advent of hexes. My main beefs with Civ V are the atrocious combat AI, the traffic jams caused by 1upt, the 4 city 'empire' (and the science penalty per city that causes it!), terrible balance of the SP trees, and the excessive randomness introduced by the goody huts and religion system (and by CS quests to a lesser extent). Most of these are being fixed, or at least addressed by Civ VI, so I'm cautiously optimistic (their silence on AI is a major red flag though). I'm fine with incremental changes for the better; no need for revolution for revolution's sake.

 

[Buccaneer]

So tell me which aspect of Civ V did it better than Civ IV? From your statement I assume that you think that Civ V is better than Civ IV. Tell me then how citizen=science is better than a commerce system. Tell me how 1upt , a system that the AI can't play , is better than SOD in a Civ game. Tell me how building four cities for all the game is better than having a game where you are actually expanding (it is a 4X game remember, not a 4 city one). How diplomacy is better if even taking one city would mean getting your long standing allies at your gates; how GH is even a good system against expansion

A science-centric game (citizen=science) brings the completeness of the tech tree more in play.

1UPT is far, far superior to SoD, particularly from the standpoint that it is much more fun to play. People way overestimated AI's ability with SoD (I witnessed so many suicide stack attacks that it was stupid), and underestimated AI's 1UPT ability - ever face an early Japanese rush on multiple targets? Plus, many of us are old wargamers and trying to figure out how to move units on a hex-based map was one of the greatest gaming experiences, esp. in trying to deal with terrain, line of fire and zone of control. Besides, there was no skill or fun in moving a bulldozer (and RTS-like rushes) but there was much more in trying to fit 7 units into an enemy terrain that only had room for 4 - so which 4 and in what order of battle?

Sure, the AI does not do that as well, they didn't do that well in wargames in either, nor did they do SoD that well. In Civ5, that's what difficulty levels are for.

Having 4 cities where every single resource is a decision-point (which is the basis of playing 4x games, not covering the map with SimCity-like messes), instead of the massive, over-production of Civ4 = less decision-points and less value (in acquiring, trading, losing or fighting) of each resource.

Civ4 was my favorite game until Civ5 came out. While the initial release was problematic, it was playable and I and others had many fun games - more than I had in any Civ4 games. But I anxiously awaited the patches and the expansions to see if they would greatly improve on the new designs - and they did beyond anyone's expectations, particularly in making a culture victory fun to play for first time ever.

I get it, you love Civ4 and can't let it go and you and others spend so much time slamming those of us that love Civ5 that it gets really annoying and tiresome, esp. when you and others hijack Civ6 threads. People like you and Sullla wanted a different game, as long as it was Civ4. In my opinion, Civ5 improved on nearly every aspect of Civ4 (not all, though) in making the game more fun to play and bringing in a much more diverse Civ experience. If you and others can't understand that, then don't bring it up in every thread.