The Strategic Vision of CivV

[Atrebates]

Hey guys, what's the overarching strategic view of CivV and what do we make of it?

It seems like the detail of war has been upped (ranged attacks, no SoD) and there is also a lot of chat about diplomacy modifications (city states, no Tech Trading, culture expansion into remote areas is more difficult) that looks like it's designed to remove the "exploits" in diplomacy that allow us to pursue asymmetric tactics**.

This looks like Firaxis have got more serious about how nuanced they are prepared to make the strategy of the game. Given all this extra detail (ie. stuff for the player to do) flying around I can only assume that Micromanagement must be HUGELY reduced in Civ V or else we'll all get bogged down by the renaissance.

Fingers crossed that all tactics (peace, war, twattery, uber-teching) become equally viable in CivV.


Overall, I am hopeful for the game - a product that is inventive and wants to pursue depth is always worth supporting in preference to a cash-cow sequel. I would note that with all this extra content it will only take a few mistakes (excess micro springs to mind) to really hurt the game.



** REX in CivIII, strategic tech selling in CivIV, the whip-rush tactics that developed in the community etc... Generally tactics that aren't sustainable but get propped up by players using some part of the game mechanic to save them from bombing horribly

 

[fandamage]

I agree strongly. I understand that many players' are attached to certain aspects of the game and are concerned to see them go, but I am much more concerned with the overall Civ Experience than with any particular element. SODs, rampant Tech Trading/Brokering/Selling/Abusing and other things that have been removed or substantially changed were all things that naturally developed as tactics too effective to pass up. Players are more or less forced to play the game a certain way if they want to compete, and that severely limits the strategic depth, replay value and overall immersive feel of the game.

Anytime entire aspects of the game (like Combat and Diplomacy) are that as simplistic as they have been in Civ so far, it represents a missed opportunity and it takes away from the rich sense of imersion that Civ offers. I'm very optimistic about Civ 5 because Firaxis seems to have a good handle on what makes Civ so compelling in such a unique way for so many players, and they are willing to challenge conventions when they feel that they have an improved system.

There is always risk attached to innovation, but Firaxis has an exceptional track record and they encourage modding and community contributions. It's not their job to tweak what is safe in minor ways; that's what modding is for. It's their job to deliver fundamental changes and bold innovations that open up virgin territory for what a Civ game can be.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think they realized that the way they were going with civ made the game more and more complex and condensed. Now they're trying to expand it, make the expansion and combat more fun and throw out the features that made it dense and focus on the core aspects. The fun from researching was decreased from the necessity of techtrading and the whole game has become too much politics.

 

[UKScud]

I can't see micromanagement being an issue...rather, if Firaxis succumbs to the pressure that every other developer seems to crumple under, the danger is that the game will be dumbed down as many have been in recent years in order to sell it to the >spit< "casual" market.

Thank god that Civ has always had such a huge modding community who will rush to create a worthy successor if that does happen.

 

[EdCase]

I agree strongly. I understand that many players' are attached to certain aspects of the game and are concerned to see them go, but I am much more concerned with the overall Civ Experience than with any particular element. SODs, rampant Tech Trading/Brokering/Selling/Abusing and other things that have been removed or substantially changed were all things that naturally developed as tactics too effective to pass up. Players are more or less forced to play the game a certain way if they want to compete, and that severely limits the strategic depth, replay value and overall immersive feel of the game.

Anytime entire aspects of the game (like Combat and Diplomacy) are that as simplistic as they have been in Civ so far, it represents a missed opportunity and it takes away from the rich sense of imersion that Civ offers. I'm very optimistic about Civ 5 because Firaxis seems to have a good handle on what makes Civ so compelling in such a unique way for so many players, and they are willing to challenge conventions when they feel that they have an improved system.

There is always risk attached to innovation, but Firaxis has an exceptional track record and they encourage modding and community contributions. It's not their job to tweak what is safe in minor ways; that's what modding is for. It's their job to deliver fundamental changes and bold innovations that open up virgin territory for what a Civ game can be.

Every game "forces" you to play a certain way if you want to "beat" an AI opponent. Civ 5 will be no different, it will just take different methods.

Play to play instead of play to win and you'll have an entirely different experience.

 

[Atrebates]

I can't see micromanagement being an issue...rather, if Firaxis succumbs to the pressure that every other developer seems to crumple under, the danger is that the game will be dumbed down as many have been in recent years in order to sell it to the >spit< "casual" market.

Micromanagement has always been the bane of Civ, it's the reason for "late-game-slowdown"... all those little bits for you have to do, control workers, control production, tweak city assignments and move military units (whilst doing the tech strategy and diplomacy business).

On the other hand, pernickety control of workers and citizens is part of what makes the early game so compelling so it's a difficult problem to handle.

The more detail you put into a game the more the micro blooms.

My theory is that we don't need to worry about casual focus, I think that hexagons are hellishly geeky - the RTS equivalent of a d20 - and if Firaxis were focusing on casuals they would have stuck with the normal grid (unless they figured that hexagons make for prettier screenshot scenery)... I could well be completely wrong.

Fingers crossed on not dumbing down mind - that'd be very irritating if they did

 

[mattigus]

I can't see micromanagement being an issue...rather, if Firaxis succumbs to the pressure that every other developer seems to crumple under, the danger is that the game will be dumbed down as many have been in recent years in order to sell it to the >spit< "casual" market.

The casual market is being addressed thanks to the Civ game on Facebook. Any changes made to the game are probably meant to streamline the game and make it more fun, while retaining the strategic complexity.

Unless you think the health system from Civ4 was a feature aimed at the "casual" market.