Sullla Discovers the Major Fault Behind Civ V: The Death of Civ?

[dorn]

Doing ICS growth like this takes advantage of many imbalances in almost every part of the game.

You don't quite seem to understand how software design works. The fact that it takes advantage of a whole bunch of obvious imbalances is exactly why it's very very VERY easy to fix.

 

[dannythefool]

So it remove the problem from cities in bad spot, not the problem itself, but it's a starting point.

It doesn't elimiate it entirely but it makes it worthwhile to consider where you settle.
Note that ICS doesn't have to be completely useless to fix it. There just have to be enough better options.

You know that it works now giving the same numerical bonus to all city, but a 10% is not a numerical bonus that can be added to each city without a calculus as a middle... So the mechanic is far distant from the actual...

There is a similar mechanic in the game. Some buildings have a bonus that reduces the amount of food a city needs to grow. This is equivalent if you assume infinite precision; with the amount of food a city produces being an integer, it's slightly more beneficial than adding a percentage based amount to that amount and rounding down. But the general idea is already in the game.

 

[snoochems]

*deep breath*

I, like this Sulla fella, who by the way sounds like a champion, am afraid that even if all the obvious bugs and AI problems are fixed, the game will still be broken due to the deliberate poorly-thought-through-gameplay mechanics implemented and god-awful-design decisions made by the doofus developers, who have clearly lost touch with the real fans of the series, along with the producers who are only interested in appeasing the lowest common denominator - the mostly-********-console-gaming-short-as-f$%k-attention-span-teeny-boppers.

/rant

Civ 5 is broken. And even if there are massive patches coming out that fixes all the bugs, and addresses the AI problems, and the numerous interface problems, and complete lack of polish problems, the base of which the game is built upon is flawed.

Moderator Action: Swearing is not allowed nor is such broad, crude generalizations.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[pi-r8]

You don't quite seem to understand how software design works. The fact that it takes advantage of a whole bunch of obvious imbalances is exactly why it's very very VERY easy to fix.

really? it's easy to change almost every building, policy, and terrain tile in the game? That means reworking EVERYTHING in the game.

Think of it this way- a city tile now can produce 10 food, 10 hammers and 2 gold, with 0 unhappiness. That's equivalent to 3 mines, a plains trading post, and 8 fertilizer grassland farms, which costs 12 unhappiness. So you'll need a coloseum, theater, and stadium to manage that. But those buildings cost 14 gold in maintenence, so now you need to work 7 more trading posts. Well you can maybe build a circus, otherwise you're out of happy buildings and that city is now costing you 7 unhapiness. It is literally impossible for regular citizens to ever match what a regular city tile can produce. The extra city also adds scientist slots (with a library), each is worth about 20 beakers/turn, compared to the 1 of a regular citizen. You'll have to severely change the game to make it so adding extra citizens is anywhere close to the power of extra cities.

 

[drachasor]

You don't quite seem to understand how software design works. The fact that it takes advantage of a whole bunch of obvious imbalances is exactly why it's very very VERY easy to fix.

What he meant to be saying is that fixing any one of the things that helps ICS will penalize legitimate strats just as much.

There's a reason Civ 3 had that horrendous corruption problem. They spent a whole game getting a fix to ICS WRONG before they figured out a better one for Civ 4. Problem is, Civ 5 doesn't use it and then it adds a bunch more reasons that make ICS even better. Closing up the additional reasons won't stop ICS, you need to close them all up, and this needs be done carefully so that legitimate play isn't destroyed.

 

[Thedrin]

Sullla:
Then let's consider hills. You have two options with hill tiles, mine or trading post. Mines take the tile from 0/2/0 to 0/3/0, which is useful in a city specifically set up for production but otherwise not really very good. Instead, trading posts will turn hill tiles into 0/2/2 tiles, which the raw numbers rather strongly suggest is superior. And you have the same issue with Golden Ages again: which is better, a 0/4/0 tile or a 0/3/3 tile? Yeah, I know which one I would prefer. Forests are about the only tile where one can make a case for lumbermilling instead of adding trade posts, and in those cases you should probably go with whatever the city needs more, production or gold. Still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, trading posts are the best tile improvement to have. Trading posts are actually BETTER than the bonus resources; I would happily get rid of those stupid sheep on the hill so that I could build a trading post there instead. This is one of the biggest faults of Civ5: the resources have such low yields they become all but irrelevant, and the basic terrain itself is all that matters. It doesn't help either that grassland hill = plains hill = tundra hill = desert hill, and ditto for every forest tile, and grassland = floodplains without distinction between the two. There is a feeling of... sameness about the terrain in Civ5, where everything just sort of runs together. In Civ4, it *MATTERS* where you place your cities, what the terrain looks like, and what resources cities have in their radius. I don't get that same feeling at all with Civ5, which isn't a good thing.

CaptSah:
To discover the answer, I went back and played a game of Civ IV. In one two-hour session I discovered why I am not liking Civ 5 but still love Civ IV. In a word, it's the land.

In Civ IV, my favorite part of the game is spotting the most perfect city-sites, and trying to build them up. The tension in the game starts from the very first turn, when I must decide if the starting location is "ideal" or could be improved by moving a tile or two (and even if it can, is it worth giving up a turn or two of research right off the start?). The tension continues as I must plot the locations of new cities, always looking for spots with the ideal mix of resources and farming ability. This quest for prime real estate always generates the most interesting conflict with the AI, and it's even more engaging when you consider that most historical conflicts between civilizations revolved around land and resources. Nobody ever fought wars over Siberia, but everyone wanted a piece of the "fertile crescent."

It's a big problem.

But I amn't seeing anything that is completely broken. Just stuff that needs a lot of rebalancing.

I haven't read through this thread yet, but I've seen that someone who complains about long build times is present. Yes, that's a problem, but it's possible to fix this with a patch.

In terms of countering ICS, the following changes might be useful:
- City states should not provide bonuses to every city. Just to one city.
- Rebalance science production so that a large city can compete with several smaller cities. E.g. if science is currently proportional to city size, change it so that it's proportional to city population. If it's already proportional to population (which would be surprising as many smaller cities seem to be able to compete with fewer large ones) then make oit proportional to population squared, or something.

Actually the city state change is something I really want to see anyway. Per city bonuses are a big part of why city placement is nearly irrelevant in CivV - along with limited competitive tile improvement options.

 

[Iberian]

One other point...

It isn't fun.

I tried playing for fun but the AI forces you into war, which we all know how that ends. I have to take over the continent. I have to build tons of cities. It is the way the game goes and it isn't fun. Plus turns take too long. Turns should be like 1-2 seconds then 6-7 seconds max at the end. I don't want to spend 200 turns waiting 10+ seconds each turn. That is wasting my time.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

It doesn't elimiate it entirely but it makes it worthwhile to consider where you settle.
Note that ICS doesn't have to be completely useless to fix it. There just have to be enough better options.



There is a similar mechanic in the game. Some buildings have a bonus that reduces the amount of food a city needs to grow. This is equivalent if you assume infinite precision; with the amount of food a city produces being an integer, it's slightly more beneficial than adding a percentage based amount to that amount and rounding down. But the general idea is already in the game.

I don't think that building and city-states share the same logic in the core files, so it's adding percentage as bonus is the same that rewriting them... Possible, but as i say, i don't know if Firaxis will modify so deeply a machanic with a patch... Maybe with an expansion.... If it was so easy, the same could be happened on some mechanic flaws of Civ IV, as we say before....

 

[fendrake]

I think Dorn and Klokwerk are the closest to the truth here. Sulla found the imbalances, but he's overstating the problem they pose to the future of Civ 5: both Firaxis and modders should have no trouble dealing with it. In terms of programmer-hours, it is trivial. They just need feedback on where to tweak.

Maritime city states: obviously broken. The suggestions such as % growth (similar to "love the king" day) or limiting the effect to biggest cities would help a lot. I'd even suggest changing their effect to just hammers instead (again limited to large cities).
Social policies: Sulla points out a range of value for various policies, and I think he is right. Extra food in your newly laid city is crap, Communism is overpowered. They need a lot of tweaking.

One that hasn't been mentioned much is the trading with AIs, specifically getting gold out of them. They shouldn't be buying your luxuries for 10 gold per turn when they have an excess of happiness already, not to mention you can probably get luxuries cheaper from city-states. For about 500 up front and then only ~8/turn averaged cost you can have an ally, and on top of their luxury you are probably getting strategic resources and their type-specific bonus (culture, units, food). I am surprised such a basic consistency check for these values wasn't done. They also buy open borders for 50g for no apparent gain.

 

[fendrake]

really? it's easy to change almost every building, policy, and terrain tile in the game? That means reworking EVERYTHING in the game.

Think of it this way- a city tile now can produce 10 food, 10 hammers and 2 gold, with 0 unhappiness. That's equivalent to 3 mines, a plains trading post, and 8 fertilizer grassland farms, which costs 12 unhappiness. So you'll need a coloseum, theater, and stadium to manage that. But those buildings cost 14 gold in maintenence, so now you need to work 7 more trading posts. Well you can maybe build a circus, otherwise you're out of happy buildings and that city is now costing you 7 unhapiness. It is literally impossible for regular citizens to ever match what a regular city tile can produce. The extra city also adds scientist slots (with a library), each is worth about 20 beakers/turn, compared to the 1 of a regular citizen. You'll have to severely change the game to make it so adding extra citizens is anywhere close to the power of extra cities.

Well, I would say fixing maritime states and the communism policy solve the problem? Am I missing something?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

As i say, it was so simple also on Civ IV, but some issues were solved only by mods after a lot of time, and not completely... So assuming that they will change it in a blink of an eye with a patch, i think is realistic as a donkey flying...

But i understand that some people likes to be optimistic too.

 

[drachasor]

Well, I would say fixing maritime states and the communism policy solve the problem? Am I missing something?

Yeah, you're missing that it wouldn't solve the problem.

If you completely removed Maritime City-States, then you'd just have a slight bit more focus in science-centered ICS cities (they'd need to maintain a farm or perhaps have a granary and watermill). Beyond that it is much the same, except a farm or two for a little while to get growth going and maybe getting a granary there too. So that means you can't build them in absolutely crap places (like pure ice). Moderately crappy places still work though.

Communism is totally unnecessary and just icing on the cake. You don't need it at all (just like he didn't need the +2 beakers per specialist). There's plenty of money to buy whatever you need. All "fixing" communism would do is make it so rushing to get it wouldn't make sense. That doesn't change the power of the strat at all (that gold per turn he was getting he'd be getting a LOT sooner without communism -- remember he's pretty much devoted to using just the first buildings you get in ICS cities).

 

[man-erg]

Just started reading it. Funnily enough, the overall tone is making me want to defend CivV! He does seem to have set outto completely break the game engine, and then sounds surprise when it starts breaking. I should really read to the end to see the 'core' problems, but in the first section, there are only balancing problems and the AI military problem. Both easily patchable.

When he complains about this as being "insane AI" :
"Meanwhile, Alex walked his settler eight tiles away from his capital so that he could plant it next to Orleans. Naturally, the very next turn he popped up in diplomacy and told me "I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be expanding into lands which I regard as mine." Uh-huh, right. You marched all that distance to plant a city right next to me, and then complained about my aggressive settling."

I really don't see the problem. Cheeky, aggressive AI surely? If it *didn't* do that on Immortal, people would complain about the AI being too passive. And the AI comment is realistically the attitude of colonisers since the dawn of history....

 

[drachasor]

When he complains about this as being "insane AI" :
"Meanwhile, Alex walked his settler eight tiles away from his capital so that he could plant it next to Orleans. Naturally, the very next turn he popped up in diplomacy and told me "I couldn't help but notice that you seem to be expanding into lands which I regard as mine." Uh-huh, right. You marched all that distance to plant a city right next to me, and then complained about my aggressive settling."

I really don't see the problem. Cheeky, aggressive AI surely? If it *didn't* do that on Immortal, people would complain about the AI being too passive. And the AI comment is realistically the attitude of colonisers since the dawn of history....

Except the AI clearly has no conception of what is going on in that situation. It should be angry about getting hemmed in, but it isn't programmed to really comprehend what is going on there. Just like it isn't programmed to be able to keep any sort of lasting friend.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

But in the same way, slavery was much too efficient in Civ IV.

Yes and no.
The main problem was the stupid way in which slavery is implemented ( own population treated like slaves which could be whiped ??? WTH ??? ). A far better approach - even more "politically disturbing" was Call To Power one : slaves was captured from battles ... If whipping could be limitted to such a "limited part of population" and could be hard to replace it would be MUCH more interesting and not too powerfull at all ...

And also the fact that the whole Labor civics is quite unbalanced lead to very easy decision to switch to Slavery.

Just my personal opinion - of course.

 

[pi-r8]

Well, I would say fixing maritime states and the communism policy solve the problem? Am I missing something?

so now small cities and large cities are both equally useless...you'd never be able to build anything in the late game.

Actually the small cities would still be better, because they can get by with cheap coloseums instead of expensive stadiums. Just have half your cities run a farm and 3 trading posts, while the other half run 2 farms and 2 scientists. They'll totally destroy whatever production you can get out of a few big cities.

 

[dorn]

really? it's easy to change almost every building, policy, and terrain tile in the game? That means reworking EVERYTHING in the game.

You'll have to severely change the game to make it so adding extra citizens is anywhere close to the power of extra cities.

No. None of that is required. This strat is very dependent on stacking a few imbalances. I say again DEPENDENT.

The goal is not to destroy the strat. Simply fixing a few minor things here and there (maritime cities and happiness buildings being the most obvious) will cause it to be brought back in line just fine.

In contrast fixing the military victory (which is far easier) is FAR FAR FAR harder.

 

[Thedrin]

Brief scan of thread.

Yeah, I'd still say that changing city states and science generation are to the largest changes that need to be made in terms of reducing the power of ICS.

City states (not just maritime, Sullla rightly pointed out in his report that cultural city states are also extremely powerful): City states aren't necessary for ICS, but without them the relative value of this strategy compared to others is significantly reduced.

I see that some people are championing a +10% bonus from city states. It's something, but I would say that limiting the bonus to just one city would be the way to go.

Does anyone have the exact formula used to calculate a cities science output? Is it based on city size or city population? I'm having a lot of difficulty believing that a load of small cities can compete with a handful of large cities (before taking account of specialists) if it's based on population.

 

[Andoo]

If you completely removed Maritime City-States, then you'd just have a slight bit more focus in science-centered ICS cities (they'd need to maintain a farm or perhaps have a granary and watermill). Beyond that it is much the same, except a farm or two for a little while to get growth going and maybe getting a granary there too. So that means you can't build them in absolutely crap places (like pure ice). Moderately crappy places still work though.

Even in civ4bts more cities in good locations always meant better in the long run. It should matter where it's been built and how long it takes until fruitation. The ICS problem in civ5 is that it takes so little time for new cities to profit and that land-tiles matter much less. Nerfing maritime states will help removing both problems since farm is weaker and food buildings take much more time, hammer and maintanence.

 

[fendrake]

If you completely removed Maritime City-States, then you'd just have a slight bit more focus in science-centered ICS cities (they'd need to maintain a farm or perhaps have a granary and watermill). Beyond that it is much the same, except a farm or two for a little while to get growth going and maybe getting a granary there too. So that means you can't build them in absolutely crap places (like pure ice). Moderately crappy places still work though.

Assuming you have no river (river spots are great, of course), you get 3 food per farm (til fert), so to balance the effect of just one maritime city state, it is costing you two happiness per city. This wipes out both the meritocracy policy and forbidden palace bonuses, which Sulla stressed heavily. Getting granaries up take a long time in a small new city, and cost upkeep.

Might it still be worth putting the cities up? Maybe, but they certainly won't grow as fast and it might not be optimal across the board anymore. We really would have to sit down and crunch through a lot to figure that out. Or we can get Sulla to try ICS without maritimes .

Communism is totally unnecessary and just icing on the cake.

I somewhat agree, and the agree the bigger problem was the slingshotting. Any fixed bonus to all cities though, can really unbalance ICS.