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

It has been 8+ years since I bought a game the first month that it came out. Now I remember why.

I would like to thank Sullla and others for putting in the time and effort to not only perform this experiment, but to document how, and (more importantly) why, it worked the way that it did. I am gladdened that there are enough people who care about this franchise that the coming patches/reworks will at least have an outside chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, I will not be playing again until that occurs. I would love to spend my time playing this game, but it is too deeply flawed for me to enjoy. Will the patches salvage it? Maybe eventually, but if the effort to document issues isn't made, this will game will die (relatively) alone and unloved. Only if the fanbase continues to document the underlying flaws in the current version will we stand a chance. Good luck, friends, and I hope we get a playable version soon.
 
"Because I wanted to follow luddite's general build, I would be playing as France in this game, once again on Immortal difficulty. For some variation I chose the Small Continents map script, although with Low sea levels to avoid getting a map full of little islands"

again-specific play - this time in duality- another's build, and map type not standard

not to many standard continent map wins

wonder why

"I started out with my standard Civ5 build of scout, worker, settler."

again- by rote- start with a monument or whatever for the hell of it, some are bound by god knows what when there is no logic to having fun.
 
It's nice to see that this thread has grown.

I think there are only two things they could do to fix this.

1) Re-work expansion and everything back to Civ IV.
2) Get rid of happiness buildings save for wonders, and allow for each wonder to give +1 happiness or something.
 
Where exactly is the proof for all this fear?

I don't... um...

What are you looking for, exactly? It is trivial to show that cramming together mostly small cities is the most efficient way to generate large amounts of gold and science. It can be shown through a simple chain of deductive reasoning. Where is the disconnect?
 
-his surrounding terrain was poor
-starting position poor

His starting terrain and position were mediocre. It did have horses, which were essential for his horseman rush strategy to defeat Greece. Which were in a worse position than he was. He makes note that his horsemen are running over their warriors, but they haven't got the horses to use.
 
"here is a game not for fun or to show how to settle in desert next to the great mesa. it is to prove someone is wrong and here are some illustrations and game play that is in no way influenced by the very premise of what i am writing or the very human response of arguing on the net with a stranger"

lol

the evidence is clear- Attacko's Desert Tile City Attack -Oil, Fort, and Dune
at least talks about the game from like a , you know, game perspective?

And you're any different by posting this?

He provided an insight into what ICS is about and proved that it can be kickstarted even with an unfavorable start location. You're choosing to take one paragraph wildly out of context and being really, really daft about it.

At least read the page from like a, you know, game perspective?

"I started out with my standard Civ5 build of scout, worker, settler."

again- by rote- start with a monument or whatever for the hell of it, some are bound by god knows what when there is no logic to having fun.

What in fardwark's name would you rather see, then? Start by beelining into Acoustics and rush Kremlin "for the hell of it?" Build a settler and settle right next to his capital to "have fun?"
 
1) Increase food/strategic resource yields, increase production yields in mines with tech (already done in mods)

2) Reduce TPs to 1 gold (already done in mods)

3) Make CSs give you a percentage bonus to your own culture/food production in a limited way rather than gift you stuff for free.
So that a maritime CS gives you % bonus to food production in cities, rounded down.
And cultural CS gives you some small % bonus to culture production in cities (NOT TO THE TOTAL), again, rounded down.
(not to the total, so that you'd have to specialize some cities to be culture spots, which again refuses ICS viability)


That way you have to again specialize your cities and give them unique strategies.
Also, you don't get a ton of free food for nothing and your ICSs cant grow without producing REAL food (the core of the ICS strat)
Also, you don't get magic culture, but again, have to produce real.
Also, production becomes a bigger focus than purchasing (Because of the tile/improvement yield changes), which in turn promotes the creation of bigger, better placed cities.

This setup still promotes expansion, as a CIV game should, but more thoughtful and planned expansion now.



ICS fixed.

1) Increasing food yield will still leave large cities very hard to make. The problem is they grow way too slowly and there's not much of an advantage to having one big city compared to 3 or so smaller ones (culture is just about the only thing).

2) Normal Empires can already have significant money issues. Now you've just bankrupted them and made non-river starts such a joke that no one should ever play a game without a river. Nerfing TPs is a gross overreaction. They aren't the problem. The problem is everything else. Something can look overpowered when the truth is everything else is just too weak.

3) You don't need Maritime to have ICS work. You only need size 4 cities. Even anything Maritime is a bit problematic in Sulla's game because it made his cities grow too much (giving him extra problems with happiness). This makes the initial period a little slow for a new city (you use farms to get to size 4, and it makes really bad areas like ice and resourceless tundra not worth it..probably). Maybe toss in a Granary. Besides a small delay for new cities getting up to snuff, it doesn't change anything.

I don't think these fixes would work well together either. Now you have big cities that can make stuff reasonably (assuming we are doubling hammers here), but you have far, far less gold to support more buildings OR more military units. How does that help anything? That would tend to encourage ICS anyhow (with more hammers meaning a small city doesn't need communism, necessarily).

With any of these things, you need to consider why building more cities is bad. In Civ 3 it was corruption (which was insane and awful). In Civ IV it was city maintenance, something a small city couldn't avoid. In Civ 2, of course, there was nothing, despite bigger cities having more production and being able to produce more -- kind of like what you are proposing here.

Personally you need some sort of cost for each city. Happiness isn't a very good way to go, imho, because while it might work, it doesn't make much sense at all (and it would probably hurt more reasonable empires). Some fixes probably need to be done with happiness though (I could see putting a pop requirement on Theatres and Stadiums, then making them MORE efficient than Coliseums).

So what else do you have? Culture? Already being tried and it doesn't work. What you have left is science and money, pretty much. Well, I don't think a science hit is going to do much, personally (worst case you fix it with some big cities or again it becomes an extremely artificial mechanic). Money seems like the best bet. City Maintenance made sense in 4, didn't feel like an artificial mechanic designed to punish you, and it worked at stopping ICS. Naturally building maintenance would have to pretty much disappear, but again that also is anti-ICS since it means big cities don't have crazy costs that they have to pay compared to small cities.

Of course, other stuff needs to be be adjusted to fix the other problems Sulla's game revealed (such as terrain not mattering, etc). I can't think of a better and more fun mechanic to help fix ICS than city maintenance, however.
 
His starting terrain and position were mediocre. It did have horses, which were essential for his horseman rush strategy to defeat Greece. Which were in a worse position than he was. He makes note that his horsemen are running over their warriors, but they haven't got the horses to use.
True, but how could he tell the greeks didn't have horses. That, you only find out after you make contact...

Anyway i see i have the germans as my neighbours; splendid :)
Click the thumbnail for a lager image.
 
True, but how could he tell the greeks didn't have horses. That, you only find out after you make contact...

Anyway i see i have the germans as my neighbours; splendid :)
Click the thumbnail for a lager image.

Doesn't look like the best of starts, that's for sure.
 
Sullla's's depth of analysis and clarity of vision are rare. He has the ability to cut to the strategic heart of a game very quickly. I've been a follower (and lurker) of his (and others) feats at Realms Beyond for many years.
 
-Click for larger image.

There are some barbs to deal with, there are two city-states south-east but none maritim however. How unfortunate. And i've seen a japanes. Lovely, must be in the south-southwest somehwere, near the germans. On a positive note; seems i am 7 turns earlier done with horseback riding then Sulla :p (and did i see a horse somehwere :crazyeye:)



Enough bad boys to deal with, already took out two units (in the middle) :D
If you look close, you just see the border of a third city-state, just at the edge (down-left). Maritim :king:
 
I'd just like to point out that if/when the game gets a more decent combat-level AI, the ICS problem could evaporate very quickly indeed. Lacking the productivity in small cities to build/purchase units quickly enough to deter aggressive (and competent) AI hordes would quickly turn the strategy more towards a defensible core of much stronger, higher pop cities...
 
I'd just like to point out that if/when the game gets a more decent combat-level AI, the ICS problem could evaporate very quickly indeed. Lacking the productivity in small cities to build/purchase units quickly enough to deter aggressive (and competent) AI hordes would quickly turn the strategy more towards a defensible core of much stronger, higher pop cities...

I don't agree.
Seems that you can pre-work and "store" the unfinished unit in a city.
Since under ICS conditions you're having so many of them, each other turn one of them can pre-build.
If nothing else helps, buy the units (enough cities are available), move them to the area where you expect/know the enemy to be and ... voilá!
 
What's really pathetic is that this ICS problem was more or less fixed in Civ4 using per city maintenance + distance to capital and no building maintenance. In such a setup, ICS is very bad since it costs you big time to just spam villages everywhere while if you kept a few cities and grew them big with lots of buildings it paid off big time.

So what did Shafer do? He threw out the Civ4 system and re-introduced the Civ3 system (the system of free benefits per new city and no cost/city and cost/buidling) where optimum strategy was ICS. Why are we going backwards in game design by throwing out stuff that worked to re-introducing older stuff that clearly didn't work that well???
 
I'd just like to point out that if/when the game gets a more decent combat-level AI, the ICS problem could evaporate very quickly indeed. Lacking the productivity in small cities to build/purchase units quickly enough to deter aggressive (and competent) AI hordes would quickly turn the strategy more towards a defensible core of much stronger, higher pop cities...

More cities means more $$$ and science. Likely you could buy all your units and have more advanced units and you'd be able to crush the AI likely anyway.

The AI would not stray away from ICS. It knows that it's its best option for winning. Its a no brainer and hence why the AI does it so well. (It doesn't have any brains. ;))

It would keep doing what works and ICS works.

The designers aren't about to do away with the core foundation of the AI.
 
Guys tell me something but be honest about it.I have few suspicions about why the game feels like a shuffled puzzle atm.I have posted some thought on page 6 if you are up for reading but to be brief tell me if my logic holds true :

Firaxis sat on the table and said :

1) we need to fix SOD
- we make 1UPT
- we make them build slower
- we make special tiles provide less to avoid runaway economy later on

2) we need to fix the pleatora of softcaps (religion health and happyness)
- we make global happiness
- we make the cost of happiness steep enough to avoid massive city empires which can lead to 1)

3) we need to solve the road spagetti
- make each road tile cost gold
- make each railroad cost even more gold

What I am trying to say here is that instead of building a solid ground of mechanics to build upon in my mind and over 300 hours(maybe more) of gaming I end up with the conclusion that they triaged some of the CiV 4 most loudly discussed features(issues if you will) without seeing the implications those fixes can make.Its like in order to keep the general fix change they stuffed the game with various penalties to make sure it is viable on the surface level.

Yet from my first king game I saw that even the AI they developed have figured out their flaws and exploted them correctly.Essentialy allmost all King+ AI strategys is ICS because the AI realises it is the road of the least friction.

So tell me am I wrong thinking this? and if I am not can I start having fear that CiV 5 has broken fundamentals and needs drastic rehowl?
 
The best way to combat ICS is to re-introduce (more or less) the Civ4 system. Cost of new cities with a cost increasing with distance to capital. Then lower cost of buildings (even making many or all zero) to compensate. Problem (re-)solved.
 
What's really pathetic is that this ICS problem was more or less fixed in Civ4 using per city maintenance + distance to capital and no building maintenance. In such a setup, ICS is very bad since it costs you big time to just spam villages everywhere while if you kept a few cities and grew them big with lots of buildings it paid off big time.

So what did Shafer do? He threw out the Civ4 system and re-introduced the Civ3 system (the system of free benefits per new city and no cost/city and cost/buidling) where optimum strategy was ICS. Why are we going backwards in game design by throwing out stuff that worked to re-introducing older stuff that clearly didn't work that well???

Because JS is infatuated with Civ III. He admitted that it is his favourite version of Civ and his design choices clearly reflect that.

I guess he doesn't subscribe to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" theory.
 
People keep saying 5 is like 3... and those people neither like 5 nor 3. I find this funny, because if 5 was actually a good game, they would say 5 is like 4... and if 5 becomes a good game, those same people will cease to say 5 is like 3.

5 makes 3 look like an ingenious game of magnificent proportions. There is nothing Firaxis did to try to mimic 3, and the similarities that are mentioned are too vague to even be called similarities, because the underlying structure of 5 is completely different in every way.
 
Top Bottom