The Final Analysis?

[sketch162000]

Sulla's 1upt analysis is interesting to say the least. I'm not sure whether or not 1upt can be fixed or if the game as a whole is salvageable. But I'm really considering that it might be better to just cut our losses and move on to Civ VI (not that I'm in any position to make that decision for the devs.)

People have been saying it for months now...most of Civ V's core game designs, things like 1upt, global happiness, and the SP system are attempts to "fix" exploits and problems in Civ IV. They went too far in one direction though, making for an awkward, lackluster game that they are now scrambling to rebalance with superficial quick fixes. The content of the recent patch is evidence of as much. To top it all off, the lead developer is gone. At this point, the devs are just trying to bail out a sinking ship.

In at least one way, the tumultuous release of Civilization V has had a silver lining. We have now experienced what happens when you go to extremes. The damage is done. 2K made their sales. It's not worth it to muck around with V any longer. We all made mistakes, and Civ VI is our chance to show what we've learned.

 

[Jester Fool]

The SDK was released a long time a go already...

The C++ code (which was the SDK in Civ 4) is actually what modders are waiting on.

 

[rschissler]

Previous Quote:
It ruins the beautiful landscape. However, it totally screws up the 1UPT. If Firaxis is set on keeping 1UPT, they should at least get rid of road maintenance.

Quote:
In Civ5 there is a strategic tradeoff between having more movement flexibility in your territory and paying more gold.
How are strategic tradeoffs a bad thing that need to be removed?

Because it makes the 1UPT even more cumbersome than it already is. Also, because the AI isn't smart enough to know how to move units the way it should on the limited number of roads it has.

 

[Jester Fool]

It gets to a point where I send workers out into the oceans as explorers or scouts, but that doesn't seem right either.

I use them during wartime as forward "shock" troops. I call it the rope-a-dope strategy. The AI will recklessly capture them and then my troops just clean up the mess.

 

[trivilization]

I use them during wartime as forward "shock" troops. I call it the rope-a-dope strategy. The AI will recklessly capture them and then my troops just clean up the mess.

I've enjoyed using that strategy as well. I pretend they are like massive hordes of zombies the enemy is forced to destroy, lest they and their cities be infected. Muhuhahaha

 

[JBConquests]

Please. Don't try to be a grown up.

I act like a grown up because I am a grown up which you obviously are not. I will not discuss this with someone who behaves like a 13 year old child.
Moderator Action: Insults are not allowed in this forum.

 

[Xyan]

A Civ design should always first begin with the design of the builder game, and only then add on the design of the military game as an extension of the core game.

Quoted to show agreement. If I wanted a war game, I get a war game. CIV begins with the tagline to build an empire to stand the test of time.

I disagree with this, I don't think the two can be separated, particularly in a 1upt environment. 1upt means there need to be fewer units overall, which means unit construction times need to be longer, which affects what building times should be, what tile yields should be, what tech costs should be, etc.

Bolded the point to it all. By insisting on the 1UPT environment, the game is unconsciously shifted to a military game with the builder game as an extension of the "core" game.

 

[lietkynes]

The thing that alarmed me was when I read a pre-release interview with Shafer and he was talking all the time about importing into Civ those great game concept ideas from Panzer General.

In my mind I was like "Panzer General ? What is that, I never heard of it. Why would you want to take concepts from an unknown irrelevant game and import them to one of the greatest and estabilished franchises in game history"

 

[Toady]

I act like a grown up because I am a grown up which you obviously are not. I will not discuss this with someone who behaves like a 13 year old child.

Dude you critisized Sulla's arguments without providing any sort of counterargument or making any real points.

You simply claimed it was a rant based on Civ 4 nostalgia simply because Civ 4 was used as a comparison. If you consider that a real argument then sorry you aren't capable of discussing anything even with 13 year olds so don't make threats that aren't applicable.

P.S. One more thing... the modders you are waiting for to save the game for you... they have to like the core game in order to mod it, to add to it, to enhance it, to iron out what they don't feel is right. People just don't go around modding for the sake of modding. They are fans too.

Do you know of many crap games that were modded into fully working masterpieces?

 

[Dale]

The thing that alarmed me was when I read a pre-release interview with Shafer and he was talking all the time about importing into Civ those great game concept ideas from Panzer General.

In my mind I was like "Panzer General ? What is that, I never heard of it. Why would you want to take concepts from an unknown irrelevant game and import them to one of the greatest and estabilished franchises in game history"

*Blows coke out of nose*

YOU WHAT???? (you can say the "f" word in between those two in your mind if you wish)

Begone foul heathen! It's only THE greatest tactical war game series ever written!

 

[lietkynes]

*Blows coke out of nose*

YOU WHAT???? (you can say the "f" word in between those two in your mind if you wish)

Begone foul heathen! It's only THE greatest tactical war game series ever written!

Maybe I am just ignorant, I don't know, it's just I had never heard of it before that interview.

I used to play this game (I think at the time when Civ1 was around): http://strategywiki.org/wiki/History_Line:_1914-1918

 

[LAnkou]

*Blows coke out of nose*

YOU WHAT???? (you can say the "f" word in between those two in your mind if you wish)

Begone foul heathen! It's only THE greatest tactical war game series ever written!

 

[Dale]

Maybe I am just ignorant, I don't know, it's just I had never heard of it before that interview.

I used to play this game (I think at the time when Civ1 was around): http://strategywiki.org/wiki/History_Line:_1914-1918

Read and learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_General

Personally, I'd suggest PG3: Scorched Earth as the best one.

 

[lietkynes]

Looks neat but I still prefer Final Fantasy Tactics, it has a very good combat AI

 

[Stapel]

A very very interesting analysis of 1UPT!

I quite like the idea of 1UPT form a strategical war-gaming point of view. But indeed, as Sulla explains very well, the concept of 1UPT has caused dozens and dozens of both major and minor details to be altered. I never really figured that myself. Many of these changes are a serious pain in the arse. And even make the game rather......, crappy.

It's a bitter contradiction. The 1UPT is actually brilliant, yet causes many aspects of the game to be poor.

Apart from 1UPT being a good idea (or not) and 1UPT causing other problems (or not), my main issue with CiV is that the AI cannot handle it. Not at all! I really have the impression that if game designers wanted to make the AI acting stupidly, rather than randomly, they couldn't have done a better job.

It's a sad conclusion that a game that has been part of my life for 18 years has become this poor.........

 

[Dale]

It's a sad conclusion that a game that has been part of my life for 18 years has become this poor.........

Pfffft baby. I been playing it for 19.

 

[Stapel]

Pfffft baby. I been playing it for 19.

Yeah, but you lost the Ashes last night

I actually think it was exactly 18 years ago, during the Christmas holidays in 1992/1993, htta I first played Civ.....

 

[Dale]

Yeah, but you lost the Ashes last night

I actually think it was exactly 18 years ago, during the Christmas holidays in 1992/1993, htta I first played Civ.....

Considering the Aussies played like under 12's, it wasn't hard to lose them.

 

[Krill]

Actually you lost them two years ago...

Also, Punter does look just as clean shaven as an under 12, doesn't he?

 

[gaiko]

I agree, they can't be separated in the implementation in any environment. But they can, and must, be analyzed separately in some priority order. In Civ that priority has traditionally been the builder game environment. Without presenting a sterile "builder vs. wargame" argument, since it is clearly a bit of both, what has always distinguished the Civ series from pure wargames is the builder aspect, and that is what justifies giving design priority to this aspect of the game, even while, in contrast to say historical simulations such as EU, etc., Civ has always equally been more of a wargame. It was the genius of the series to have combined these two in this way, but at the end of the day the builder aspect gets priority. How else were we able to endure the SoD tedium, etc., for so long?

In Civ5 there is a strategic tradeoff between having more movement flexibility in your territory and paying more gold.
How are strategic tradeoffs a bad thing that need to be removed?


I disagree with this, I don't think the two can be separated, particularly in a 1upt environment. 1upt means there need to be fewer units overall, which means unit construction times need to be longer, which affects what building times should be, what tile yields should be, what tech costs should be, etc.