The Final Analysis?

[Dralix]

His criticism of the Iroquois (and a stab at diplomacy)made no sense to me. It seems he had trouble distinguishing the difference between the game mechanics, and the AI's interest. The land wasn't settled: true. But that doesn't mean the Iroquois would prefer a rival.. so even if they are stagnant, no rival is better than a rival. So it made sense to me when they don't want him to settle there.

You could also argue that the Iroquois should prefer to have the land less densely populated, to be more in line with their historical flavor.

 

[NukeEm]

You could also argue that the Iroquois should prefer to have the land less densely populated, to be more in line with their historical flavor.

Even better. My point was Sulla portrayed it as something completely nonsensical when in fact... it made sense. Though, it would be strange to include in an empire building game a Civ, who by nature doesn't expand... isn't that the nature of an empire? I'm deviating though.. that last bit is another thread all together.

 

[Dralix]

Though, it would be strange to include in an empire building game a Civ, who by nature doesn't expand...

That would indeed be strange. But it would not be strange for some civs to expand more aggressively than others. The leaders have flavor traits, with base values, and a randomization factor so they aren't the same each game.

 

[UncleJJ]

Also... while Panzer General may be a great Tactical game... I don't want tactics in Civ... at all This is supposed to be a TBS game, strategy.. and particularly the strategy of Presidents and Emperors not Generals.

This is such a good point and I'm in total agreement. For me in the civ series of games we need to feel like we're building armies that will decide the fate of our empire by defeating the enemy's main army. Civ 4 manages to capture that feeling while Civ 5 does not. Messing around with 6 or 8 units is not an army, to me it seems too much like we're playing with toy soldiers.

What Civ REALLY needs to do is get secondary ways of competing... the Culture flipping from Civ 4 should have been improved and strengthened rather than eliminated (rebellions should have been the core game feature rather than 1UPT).

I liked the way culture domination worked in Civ 4 too (capturing tiles and even cities), it was very interesting, but it was much too weak compared with military solutions and so most players ignored a fascinating aspect of the game, since they had a simpler and more robust solution. I agree that culture should have been strengthened rather than eliminated.

 

[eMCee]

Comparing Civ4 to Civ5 is a bit like comparing Florida oranges to Florida grapefruit. They're both fruits from the same place ... but, different flavors.

Unless you clearly state the criteria you're using for your comparison, it's simply an opinion. And, opinions have no place in critical analysis, right?

 

[sketch162000]

Comparing Civ4 to Civ5 is a bit like comparing Florida oranges to Florida grapefruit. They're both fruits from the same place ... but, different flavors.

This would be a valid simile if the grapefruit in question was sold to us as an orange...

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Even better. My point was Sulla portrayed it as something completely nonsensical when in fact... it made sense. Though, it would be strange to include in an empire building game a Civ, who by nature doesn't expand... isn't that the nature of an empire? I'm deviating though.. that last bit is another thread all together.

Note that there is no characterization of sort about that. You are speaking of something that does not exist in the game... Sullla is right because the paremeters of civs are not so deep as you and Dralix are talking...

Comparing Civ4 to Civ5 is a bit like comparing Florida oranges to Florida grapefruit. They're both fruits from the same place ... but, different flavors.

Unless you clearly state the criteria you're using for your comparison, it's simply an opinion. And, opinions have no place in critical analysis, right?

So Kaspersky 2011 is a kind of antivirus with different flavour than 2010? Like the oranges are you speaking of?

Yeah opinions are no critical analysis, your is for sure an opinion (and a weird one i say).

 

[rschissler]

Comparing Civ4 to Civ5 is a bit like comparing Florida oranges to Florida grapefruit. They're both fruits from the same place ... but, different flavors.

Unless you clearly state the criteria you're using for your comparison, it's simply an opinion. And, opinions have no place in critical analysis, right?

And Sulla clearly stated the criteria he was using for his comparison, definitly a critical analysis. Sulla's article is what this thread is about anyway.

 

[Bibor]

Sulla's "Final Analysis" is a sensationalist article full of half-truths. Since people like to hear "bad news" no matter how ridiculous they sound, no wonder he has so many zealous followers. Yes, there are still bugs in the game and it feels unfinished. JUST LIKE VANILLA CIV4 DID.

Just three brief notes, since I really cannot be bothered to comment on all the rubbish:

1. Hiawatha's comment on "you expand to aggressively" means that Hiawatha thinks Sulla is placing too many cities too often. This is a valid comment for a (AI) player who sticks to two cities for a very long time. Interestingly enough, human players who find super-large AIs on another continent aren't very happy about it either.

2. If Sulla would've bothered to actually notice the size hiawatha's borders (considering he has only two cities), it would be clear as day to him that Hiawatha is going for a Cultural victory. Interestingly enough, nobody complains when India has only three cities. I guess a human players take it for granted that India equals cultural victory strategy.

3. If Sulla would've bothered to check the changes to Observatory, he could've realised that a player can still run two scientists per city, as long as the city is bordering a mountain (University + Observatory) from Renaissance on.

 

[Ayt]

Zealous followers? It isn't like the guy points out things others haven't already thought. He just happens to be a good writer and good at spotting many different issues while laying it all out in a way that makes sense.

 

[Crimso]

-The combat is utterly ruined because the AI doesn't understand how it works.
-Diplomacy is a waste of time because the AI leaders are crazy people.
-Whatever the intention of the developers, the latest patch increases punitive penalties and makes the game even less fun. It has also introduced some new gameplay bugs for me.

That is my experience with this game. I don't find Sullla's essay to be the least bit sensationalist or extreme. The game has no "one more turn-ness", because of everything from worker improvements taking too long, to teching up not being interesting, to the constant reminders that every improvement you make comes with a penalty. War sucks, peace sucks, building sucks.

Hey, I should keep playing because I'm only ten turns from railroads. That means I can build rails and move around really fast! Oh wait, rails cost a ton of money. And they also take forever to build because I can't stack workers. Well, I guess that might be balanced and fair, but suddenly I don't want to play anymore.

 

[Abegweit]

Sulla's "Final Analysis" is a sensationalist article full of half-truths. Since people like to hear "bad news" no matter how ridiculous they sound, no wonder he has so many zealous followers. Yes, there are still bugs in the game and it feels unfinished. JUST LIKE VANILLA CIV4 DID.

What nonsense. No matter how often it's repeated or how much you yell, it remains nonsense. You seem not to have read the article at all. Sullla said nothing about bugs, except to decry the abominable state of multi-player in this game.

You can dissemble about minor points like Hiawatha not expanding (and the article barely talked about that). You can talk about the unfinished aspects this game like the atrocious UI or the lack of any kind of eye candy such as victory screen (and the article barely brings them up either). But, you see, these are minor points and those of us who have given up on the game don't obsess about them. In fact, the only people who bring them up are those who makes excuses about it.

The bottom line is this: instead an empire-building game, we got a war game - and a second-rate war game at that. There are fundamental flaws at the core of this game which can never be corrected. No amount of "finishing" will save it. It is hopeless. Sullla has done an excellent job of explaining why. If you want to understand yourself, you might actually read it and address his five points instead of side-tracking into a discussion of a failure to expand or dissembling about the state of Civ 4 on release.

BTW, that was a superb game right from the beginning. I happened to go through the first two patches and the only significant change to game-play was making horses invisible until AH in order to provide some balance in multi-player. That's it. Somehow, it didn't seem to need "finishing". The bugs with ATI and memory leaks needed to be taken care of it, certainly. And they were.

In truth, there were fewer game-play changes between Civ 4 Vanilla and Warlords than there are between the first release of Civ 5 and this latest patch, which was quite clearly a panicky attempt to redress some of the enormous exploits which were quickly found in this game.

Unfortunately, if predictably, their solution to the problem was completely wrong. Instead of toning down the overpowered GS and beefing up the other GPs, they destroyed the specialist game. Instead of making big cities an attractive option, they attacked ICS. Result: even less choices. Even more boredom.

Instead of "just... one... more... turn...", it's "Oh Lord, yet another end of turn".

The game is fundamentally hopeless. It will never be fixed or "finished" because the core game mechanics are simply badly designed. There may well be more patches. They will probably continue until DLC ceases to be worthwhile.

I'll make a prediction right here: this is the first game in the Civilization franchise which will never have an expansion pack. There is nothing to build on.

 

[CaptTightpants]

Just noticed that 150 right now are logged in to the Civ 5 General Discussions forum, and 177 people are logged into the Civ 4 Creation & Customization forum. At least here on CFC, there just isn't that much enthusiasm for the new release.

To each their own, yes, but it can't be denied that Civ5 has disappointed many folks. I just IM'd an old friend who I used to play Civ3 with back in the day. He's not a hardcore peruser of these forums, not by any means. But he's saying he's going to give up on Civ 5 and start playing Civ 4 again...

 

[Abegweit]

I'm gone back to Civ IV and am seriously thinking of giving Civ III a whirl again. Or maybe finding a game from another publisher. Not sure.

One thing I do know is that those who claim that we wanted CIV 4.5 are simply wrong. We wanted another good empire-building TBS game, not a re-hashed version of an old one.

 

[Hail]

I'm gone back to Civ IV and am seriously thinking of giving Civ III a whirl again. Or maybe finding a game from another publisher. Not sure.

emphasis mine.
i wouldn't if i were you. everything in civ3 pisses me off. starting from the ******ed combat system to the unbeatable corruption and the teleporting RR in between. the WHOA moment with civ3 for me was when i discovered that courthouses do not decrease corruption by 50%, but increase the non-corrupt part by 50%. e.g. if corr was 90% with CH it will be 85% (100 - 90 = 10 -> 10 + 50% = 15 -> 100 - 15 = 85). was like

One thing I do know is that those who claim that we wanted CIV 4.5 are simply wrong. We wanted another good empire-building TBS game, not a re-hashed version of an old one.

well. i dunno. i would expect that next iteration of the series to be built upon and be similar to previous iterations


and i have a feeling that successful TBS games will have a lot in common

like what? well it must have a system to

• hinder explosive expansion (read ICS)
• make cooperation among nations worthy
• manage cities and highly likely to manage city tiles too

I thought Sulla's post was an interesting read. I don't agree with him completely but I can understand his point of view. What he considered no choice or just bad design I saw a little differently. Like maintenance costs to buildings. I personally like the mechanic. It also makes sense to me. A city with more infrastructure indeed does cost more to maintain and the Empire should have to pay to maintain those things. But I think the issue is... what am I getting in return? Sure the city is big and somewhat productive... but not much else. I would like to see more production bonuses for building large cities. So that in the modern era you can churn out more units for war.

emphasis is mine. will never happen. you did read Sulla's analysis? to the end?
building lots of units in any era does work well at all with 1upt.

this is exactly the reason why small cities fare a lot better compared to big cities than in earlier civs (civ4, civ3, etc.). sure a big city must be better, but not a lot, otherwise it's owner can spam units and will expose 1upt shortcomings.

His criticism of the Iroquois (and a stab at diplomacy)made no sense to me. It seems he had trouble distinguishing the difference between the game mechanics, and the AI's interest. The land wasn't settled: true. But that doesn't mean the Iroquois would prefer a rival.. so even if they are stagnant, no rival is better than a rival. So it made sense to me when they don't want him to settle there.

Sulla's criticism of Iroquois's behavior is his game makes perfect sense. the devs advertised the ai as playing to win. is limiting oneself to 2 cities a winning strategy?
let me reiterate: the ai has only one interest: to win. by design.
and yes. to win means not to loose. the ai should value survivability above all.

[lol]
a player liberates some other nation's capital (say Gandi). next turn(s) Gandi drops to hostile because "you have a large army near our borders!" and/or "you are settling in our land!". several turns after he DoW's the player!
[/lol]

[...]

Just three brief notes, since I really cannot be bothered to comment on all the rubbish:

1. Hiawatha's comment on "you expand to aggressively" means that Hiawatha thinks Sulla is placing too many cities too often. This is a valid comment for a (AI) player who sticks to two cities for a very long time. Interestingly enough, human players who find super-large AIs on another continent aren't very happy about it either.

valid point about Hiawatha supposedly going for a cultural victory. can your point be somehow supported? if not than your point is as valid as any speculation that Hiawatha simply did not build the settler pumping city.

indeed there was speculation that the ai does specialize and the reason it sometimes has only two or three cities is that no city was assigned the SETTLER_PUMP flag

 

[The_J]

Just noticed that 150 right now are logged in to the Civ 5 General Discussions forum, and 177 people are logged into the Civ 4 Creation & Customization forum. At least here on CFC, there just isn't that much enthusiasm for the new release.

It has been nearly the same all the time (besides release +/- 2 weeks), so the enthusiasm hasn't really cooled down.

 

[Bibor]

Seriously guys, try to invest 250 turns into a post-patch game before criticizing the game. I am one of the more vocal critic of this game since day one, yet I at least bother finding valid reasons for my statements.

AIs building spaceship parts and AIs going for a diplomatic victory are valid threats even on my (King) level. Its very common for one AI to pocket 8 or more city-states even before it builds the UN.

The diplomacy system is now sufficiently complex. Its affected both by intl. policy choices as well as the achievements of your own empire. Become too large or too advanced and AIattitude will promptly degrade, making further trades (including research agreements) hard if not impossible.

Sure, domination victory is still an option. Good luck though getting to the other continent before UN is built. Or maybe you prefer getting your invasion force nuked?

This game is far from polished, but its rather difficult to talk reason into people that already made up their mind in september 2010.

 

[Abegweit]

Seriously guys, try to invest 250 turns into a post-patch game before criticizing the game.

Really? Why should I waste my time doing that? There is nothing in the patch which gives even the slightest hope that this would turn into an actual strategy game. Quite the contrary, it was all about eliminating any strategies that people found which were not in the official 3-city 5-military-units drag-it-out push-end-turn-and-yawn path to victory.

I at least bother finding valid reasons for my statements.

This from the guy whose response to Sullla's devastating critique was all about Hiawatha's failure to grow. Plus endless jawing about something called "lack of finish" accompanied by nonsense about Civ 4 was afflicted by the same disease.

Its very common for one AI to pocket 8 or more city-states even before it builds the UN.

So now the AI knows how to buy victory just like humans? And you think this is an advancement?

The diplomacy system is now sufficiently complex. Its affected both by intl. policy choices as well as the achievements of your own empire. Become too large or too advanced and AIattitude will promptly degrade

IOW, CIV 5 "diplomacy" is all about exploiting the weak or ganging up on the strong. Great.

This game is far from polished, but its rather difficult to talk reason into people that already made up their mind in september 2010.

Just kindly stuff the "polished" cr@p. The game is hopeless. It will never be polished. Of course, until the game dies its well-deserved death, there will continue to be apologists who deny the basic faults and who applaud the AI's new-found ability to take advantage of them.

 

[JBConquests]

Just kindly stuff the "polished" cr@p. The game is hopeless. It will never be polished.

The game is certainly not hopeless.

Give a sufficiently talented development team about 6 months and they could clean this game up without redesigning or performing major rule changes like eliminating 1upt, etc.... Just a whole lot of minor rule changes, bug fixes, and AI updates like what the last patch had.

I will guess that management forced the developers to release this game 6 months to early. I am an experienced developer and have seen this happen way to much. Understand that developers never want to release the software until it is perfect - developers always want more time. So this is a constant struggle between management with the "Let's just release it now!" attitude so we can make money.

I have seen it said on this forum that people think that Civ released as a Beta version. I would say that Civ was actually released as an alpha build. If you used an alpha build of the software I develop you would find that it is just as buggy as Civ.

 

[Abegweit]

Give a sufficiently talented development team about 6 months and they could clean this game up without redesigning or performing major rule changes like eliminating 1upt, etc....

Really? Like what?

Edit: and please PLEASE stop using the word "buggy". Bugs have nothing to do with the problems of this sad piece of cr@p.