cavilier210
Warlord
buyer beware boyo
The story of a fiasco
- Thread starter Naokaukodem
- Start date
buyer beware boyo
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
Good, that's the point of this topic.
As to the rest, I really don't care you know that dude?
But here is some rubbish for you to munch:
Spoiler :
I know right? It's like you say something that completely contradicts your own point, and then people have the gall to call you out on your own hypocrisy.
The nature of patch logs has not changed since.....ever. The nature of any documentation about an upcoming event has not changed since ever. If documentation about an upcoming event is posted, it is subject to change up until that event occurs. This is true for concerts, movie times, and yes, even patch logs. This is basic functionality of the world, and Firaxis (or apparently anyone else for that matter) cannot prevent you from willfully ignoring it and getting upset when you're burned by your misinformation.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
Spoiler :
Wrong, please try to keep up. You're a hypocrite for complaining about no mods are available to change the game design (which is completely untrue, seeing as mods were available on day 1), but being complaining about how using the in-game options to change the game design are just covering up bad game design. Options exist in-game for the same reason mods are created: to provide other ways to play the game that people may find enjoyable besides the completely standard setup. If you're in the market for a game that only has a single way to play and no options anywhere, ever, to do anything else, try Call of Duty.
Complaining about patch changes when you barely skimmed them after the first portion were released and couldn't even be bothered to actually READ them when the patch was finally released is willful ignorance, not hypocrisy.
Complaining about patch changes when you barely skimmed them after the first portion were released and couldn't even be bothered to actually READ them when the patch was finally released is willful ignorance, not hypocrisy.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
UP! ... dating my position in regard of Civ5.
Finally, I re-installed the game. After all, it was only one game which was wasted. I could restart new ones. But, you will not put off my head that automatic update through Steam is a bad thing.
And, when we think at it, horses being nerfed is not that bad, they are still good on field.
So i started a game in middle difficulty and aimed a cultural victory. Just planted a second city, and took the others from an AI. Was long. And i find that culture score to reach increasing with number of non-occupied cities very, very odd. But, anyway, I succeeded. Was tough, but i won.
And i started a new game on the above difficulty. Honestly, during this game, it was hard to see where i was, i mean, how was i doing, if i were good, or not so. Probably not familiar enough with the game mechanics. So i managed my civ, creating city after city according to my hapiness possibilities. I nearly took all my continent, killing nearly entirely Japan. My production was low, though. Hard to create units. So i had to annex Japan cities, at the cost of a very high, and sometimes not very understandable happiness hit. What i disliked in Civ4 was that the gold cost of each new acquired city was not very clear. Now, it's with happiness. Anyway. I still managed to expand, but soon have been caught up by other continent AI, wich started to set cities in MY continent. Very unpleasant. The more when Russia had approximatively the same number of cities than me, making of it pretty powerfull. I will pass on the denouncing vicious circle, which have been told corrected in the new patch (which is NOT), and will stay on city states turning back on us when an AI declares war when we have been ALLIED for the whole game with those CS. And I was still allied with them.
So, how could I reasonably know that the AI have freshier allied pacts? What distinguishes an old allied pact from a new allied one, if i'm right they are both ALLIED PACTS, not anything else.
What could prevent the war declarator to have an advantage on the declared, as one has just to pay 1000 gold to each city state he wants and declare war in the same turn?
anyway, that just pissed me off. When I saw my secular ally turn back on me, i just couldn't bare it. Plus, on the other continent Russia was on the verge to take my other CS allies. I put so many efforts in that it appeared to me that it broke my game, considering i tended to aim at a diplomatic Victory.
Such things are just total crap and that akckowledges that Firaxis is really NOT a good game designer. That with crappy update system and cyclothymic last minute changes made that I uninstalled Civ5 again.
Finally, I re-installed the game. After all, it was only one game which was wasted. I could restart new ones. But, you will not put off my head that automatic update through Steam is a bad thing.
And, when we think at it, horses being nerfed is not that bad, they are still good on field.
So i started a game in middle difficulty and aimed a cultural victory. Just planted a second city, and took the others from an AI. Was long. And i find that culture score to reach increasing with number of non-occupied cities very, very odd. But, anyway, I succeeded. Was tough, but i won.
And i started a new game on the above difficulty. Honestly, during this game, it was hard to see where i was, i mean, how was i doing, if i were good, or not so. Probably not familiar enough with the game mechanics. So i managed my civ, creating city after city according to my hapiness possibilities. I nearly took all my continent, killing nearly entirely Japan. My production was low, though. Hard to create units. So i had to annex Japan cities, at the cost of a very high, and sometimes not very understandable happiness hit. What i disliked in Civ4 was that the gold cost of each new acquired city was not very clear. Now, it's with happiness. Anyway. I still managed to expand, but soon have been caught up by other continent AI, wich started to set cities in MY continent. Very unpleasant. The more when Russia had approximatively the same number of cities than me, making of it pretty powerfull. I will pass on the denouncing vicious circle, which have been told corrected in the new patch (which is NOT), and will stay on city states turning back on us when an AI declares war when we have been ALLIED for the whole game with those CS. And I was still allied with them.
So, how could I reasonably know that the AI have freshier allied pacts? What distinguishes an old allied pact from a new allied one, if i'm right they are both ALLIED PACTS, not anything else.
What could prevent the war declarator to have an advantage on the declared, as one has just to pay 1000 gold to each city state he wants and declare war in the same turn?
anyway, that just pissed me off. When I saw my secular ally turn back on me, i just couldn't bare it. Plus, on the other continent Russia was on the verge to take my other CS allies. I put so many efforts in that it appeared to me that it broke my game, considering i tended to aim at a diplomatic Victory.
Such things are just total crap and that akckowledges that Firaxis is really NOT a good game designer. That with crappy update system and cyclothymic last minute changes made that I uninstalled Civ5 again.
Truth be told, the game was not designed very well and it was released 1-2 years too early with disastrous results. I feel your pain.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
But I had no problem with the game as it was released, with SP that can be saved, powerfull horse units, cities that do not recover so fast, etc... if the game would have remained the same, i would have never notice that CS are so much screwed.
I dont know if this will help you but you can download mod buddy ( I dont know if this is easy to use or not but was just surffing the mod forums) and maybe fix some of the stuff you are upset about ex make mounted units stonger which I agree they are to weak, and low citys although I think that would make them to easy to take but to each his own as long as you like the game. I remember when civ 3 came out there were so many problems with it alot of people modded it.
manu-fan
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
Let's see. What would you have done if you were Russia? Would you have seen the threat from across the water and decided to take out the enemy's City States. Of course you would. So, in essence, you're complaining that Russia played like a Human player and out-smarted you. I guess you don't like losing. Another point. Why don't you just fire up another game and use a different strategy (or a more aggressive strategy) to win?
A lot of people will agree that Diplomacy is not perfect, but you've just got to take time to learn how to use it to your advantage.
Cheers.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
No they didn't outsmarted me, and we can't use this strategy to our advantage.
What should i do if i'm the player and chain denounced by the AIs? (whereas Russia had the same size as me but not denounced) I should buy every CS i can and in the same turn declare war to EVERY AI. Because nothing garantees me that if i declare war to Russia, another dumb AI will not buy those city states of mine and declare war in the same turn. So to be totally safe, I should buy every city state i can and declare war to every AI. There, we can see that this system is broken.
More, this system took me by surprise, because of its flawed logic, and wasted one more of my games. I don't want to waste games for every aspects of Civ5. The fact is, that I was ALLIED with this CS. There's no any degree of allied status mentionned anywhere. You are allied or your are not, period. And there were no visible tracks anywhere about that thing which became important in my game. How could i know that this ALLIED CS would turn back on me? It's not documented anywhere.
Simply, this is just another crappy game design from Firaxis. They are not consistent. They should have simply leave the allied status as it is when war declared. I still don't know what kind of fly bite them when designing such things, probably a cyclothimic thought as to make their game "hardcore", or "not that easy" to please the fans. Hastened thoughts for quick fixes of imaginary problems.
If you don't like challenge in game then why do you even play the game. If you lack iron, delay your conquest & attack when rifles & cannons are available. And this is a special feature of civ series i.e you have to adapt your strategy according to the situations rather than following a specific strategy in every single game which effects the replayability of game. If you still want to play the same way all the time then they allow you the option of 'Legandary Start' & that is by no means a bad design.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
The link between what your are saying and what you are quoting?
Yeah, I had that same feeling a few times. The chain denouncements are really broken, unrealistic, and they add nothing to the game. This is because the whole diplo system contains overly simplistic assumptions which are hard-coded.
I've edited it to make it more clear what I am saying.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
I've edited it to make it more clear what I am saying.
Well, i must say that what you are saying is pretty ok. It's just that the time i've been saying that, my play style was the earlier rush possible. Now, with Swordmen weak early for attacking cities, and with cities recovering faster, the early rushes seems very difficult. That's what I don't like too in the patches. The game as so seems more reasonnable, but also a lot less fun. I don't care if other players think it's too easy or whatever, what i like in video games is having fun, i don't look for challenge at all costs. To be franck, i even flee challenge sometimes...
Yes that is really annoying sometimes but they are going to fix it probably in the next patch or so, just like they did with 'Meritocracy' policy. It was over-nerfed in an earlier patch but now it has been fixed.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
Updating my position in regard of Civilization 5.
OK, patches have ruined some of my games, I have been angry about it, I even desinstalled the game many times. But hey, we are not a CivFanatic for nothing. I re-installed the game. Not for itself, but more to test out its possibilities in regard of the new features I always wanted to be implemented. (rise and fall of civilizations, etc.) [I mean I played the game in the light of a particular phenomenon that was not precisely emphasised in the game, like civilization are killed, barbarians rise, etc. making in a sense what I always wanted in the game, but was not emphasised or systematised in any case in Civ5 or any other Civ]
From what I said earlier, there are still some things that stand still. For example, the nerf of horses and by that itself, the rarity of iron. It can really screw games for me to not have iron, or only 2 of it. But, I have to say, most of the time I am lucky and find a source of iron far of my capital, but not too much. Also, the system of alliance with city-states. The thing I described above didn't happen to me again, especially that now i noticed (patch?) a pop up when City-States allegeance changes, and probably saved me a couple time. Also, it's rare that a City State attacks you on your grounds, and more again that they can capture one your city as it did to me. I guess I really didn't have luck, but those problems are still problems.
Anyway. I still can play the game, especially in low difficulty level, just for having fun. (last game: Prince)
So I will tell my experience with this last game. I quited when China declared war to me (backstab) Not that it was frightening or else, I just planted a city near 8 sources of iron and had a good army (1 immortal, 1 spear (gifted by a C-S), 2 or 3 warriors, 1 scout promoted into an archer (yummi) and another standard scout). I could easily take a weak city with this, or defend against a weak army as China seemed to have.
The thing is, that I just couldn't bare to move all those units, due to the 1UPT that forces you to move your units one by one, not considering possible traffic jams.
I don't know, my mind was kind of scattered in boreness when considering that. The 1UPT is so cool when you have 2-3 units. But beyond that, that's just a real pain. I was not excited enough to get it roll... again. I knew I could take one city, as it is often the case in Prince difficulty. And with iron connected, I would have rolled over China quite fastly and easily, especially with Longswords. But I was far to be attracted by this perspective. Why?
I think the game is too slow and there is not enough things to do. And that the warfare is far too much simple.
Now that's funny, I'm comming up to the same conclusion than most users after few games, but nearly at the end of my experience. The game is definitely too simple, slow, boring. Usually, simple things do not scare me as long as they are rewarding. But here, that was a bunch of moves for what would not be a killer advantage. Civilization franchise always supported the "push and play" philosophy: you have a simple unit, you simply move it, and win a fight. Now that's simple, and rewarding.
So I would say that Civilization V breaks with this philosophy in the sense that many ("trivial") efforts are needed in order to accomplish a simple thing, in the name of taking a weak city. I wouldn't have minded if the armies were insubstancial and move automatically and as much as insubstancially and take the city by a simple order (one button click). Civ2 made it right. Single units were powerfull, and as long as they were superior, they had little chance to lose. Cities didn't remove attackers life automatically and an undefended city could be easily taken early. That was simple, and the reward was immediate.
So I have to put this boreness into the 1UPT and the way it have been envisionned. (units don't kill automacially, several units are needed in order to take a city, etc...)
That's just too boring for a way too much naïve outcome.
OK, patches have ruined some of my games, I have been angry about it, I even desinstalled the game many times. But hey, we are not a CivFanatic for nothing. I re-installed the game. Not for itself, but more to test out its possibilities in regard of the new features I always wanted to be implemented. (rise and fall of civilizations, etc.) [I mean I played the game in the light of a particular phenomenon that was not precisely emphasised in the game, like civilization are killed, barbarians rise, etc. making in a sense what I always wanted in the game, but was not emphasised or systematised in any case in Civ5 or any other Civ]
From what I said earlier, there are still some things that stand still. For example, the nerf of horses and by that itself, the rarity of iron. It can really screw games for me to not have iron, or only 2 of it. But, I have to say, most of the time I am lucky and find a source of iron far of my capital, but not too much. Also, the system of alliance with city-states. The thing I described above didn't happen to me again, especially that now i noticed (patch?) a pop up when City-States allegeance changes, and probably saved me a couple time. Also, it's rare that a City State attacks you on your grounds, and more again that they can capture one your city as it did to me. I guess I really didn't have luck, but those problems are still problems.
Anyway. I still can play the game, especially in low difficulty level, just for having fun. (last game: Prince)
So I will tell my experience with this last game. I quited when China declared war to me (backstab) Not that it was frightening or else, I just planted a city near 8 sources of iron and had a good army (1 immortal, 1 spear (gifted by a C-S), 2 or 3 warriors, 1 scout promoted into an archer (yummi) and another standard scout). I could easily take a weak city with this, or defend against a weak army as China seemed to have.
The thing is, that I just couldn't bare to move all those units, due to the 1UPT that forces you to move your units one by one, not considering possible traffic jams.
I don't know, my mind was kind of scattered in boreness when considering that. The 1UPT is so cool when you have 2-3 units. But beyond that, that's just a real pain. I was not excited enough to get it roll... again. I knew I could take one city, as it is often the case in Prince difficulty. And with iron connected, I would have rolled over China quite fastly and easily, especially with Longswords. But I was far to be attracted by this perspective. Why?
I think the game is too slow and there is not enough things to do. And that the warfare is far too much simple.
Now that's funny, I'm comming up to the same conclusion than most users after few games, but nearly at the end of my experience. The game is definitely too simple, slow, boring. Usually, simple things do not scare me as long as they are rewarding. But here, that was a bunch of moves for what would not be a killer advantage. Civilization franchise always supported the "push and play" philosophy: you have a simple unit, you simply move it, and win a fight. Now that's simple, and rewarding.
So I would say that Civilization V breaks with this philosophy in the sense that many ("trivial") efforts are needed in order to accomplish a simple thing, in the name of taking a weak city. I wouldn't have minded if the armies were insubstancial and move automatically and as much as insubstancially and take the city by a simple order (one button click). Civ2 made it right. Single units were powerfull, and as long as they were superior, they had little chance to lose. Cities didn't remove attackers life automatically and an undefended city could be easily taken early. That was simple, and the reward was immediate.
So I have to put this boreness into the 1UPT and the way it have been envisionned. (units don't kill automacially, several units are needed in order to take a city, etc...)
That's just too boring for a way too much naïve outcome.
