Things I hoped would be gone from Civ5

[pholtz]

90% of random events in the Civ series have been dumb things like "floods strike! you lose some things" or "some of your improvements are randomly pillaged"! "Pollution appears"! "Your units take some random damage"!

I don't see how these add anything to the game. Random events were one of many bad decisions made in Beyond the Sword, I always turned them off (at least there was the option to turn them off).

To be truthful, I had forgotten about those. It's been a long time since I played IV. But anything they add to the game, that you can turn off, just gives you more options.

 

[isau]

I agree that random events detract from the game in a majorly unfun way for me. Some people say they are realistic. But to me, in terms of immersion, they often cross the line between "telling" and "showing." Most random events feel like being told something happened versus actually feeling like I was there when it happened. " A flood happened." Really? I didn't feel like I was involved in it in any way.

I much prefer random events that set up a sequence for you to react to. The randomized map for example. It gives you random and then you can react to its randomness over many turns. Same with random civs showing up in the game. Etc.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I liked City States, Hexes and 1UP. What I didn't like was the general inflexibility. There were very few choices in the tech tree, and eventually you had to research everything and you kept your policies forever. The civics tree and governments fix that. Mots of my complaints about Civ V seem to have been adressed.
But I still want my sliders back !

 

[Valmighty]

The tech trees never made too much sense. You researched the Calendar and the Compass before Astronomy, and Animal Husbandry before Trapping in Civ 5 among other things. And couldn't you build a space ship without Computers?
But aren't the two trees linked by Eurekas? I know that is no hard limit. But you need to keep up with the civics to get the Eurekas for later techs and vice versa IIRC. And especially with later tech, 50% boosts seem a thing you don't want to miss if possible.

Two tech trees do make more sense (it's like having one tech tree with very big branches). But only if they depend on each other. I dislike civ5 tech tree. Civ4 was better and made more sense since a tech in the other side of the path still depend on the other tech. For example Code of Laws required writing.

I don't say we should go back, but Firaxis should implement this with their new tree mechanics.

 

[jekke]

Rhye's and Fall, China, hurricane taking away the needed temple I just whipped up. I cannot whip another in time, hence I cannot build the second pagoda in time, I lose the game. None of it is in my control.

Great design.

This might be just not the best choice of the particular type of random events. It does not make the general idea of having randomness (including that in battle outcome) outright bad. Also, such a heavily time-oriented mod as RFC, where you explicitly have to reach certain goals by year xx, has its own peculiarities as compared to regular game.

 

[bookman_]

Civ4 was better and made more sense since a tech in the other side of the path still depend on the other tech. For example Code of Laws required writing.

The Haudenosonee people (Iroquois) have had (and still have) a Constitution of more than one hundred articles for at least three centuries without having discoverd writing.

 

[anandus]

One of the things I really really hope are gone from Civ 5 are the slingshots.
Those were terrible and really ruin the game.

 

[apocalypse105]

One of the things I really really hope are gone from Civ 5 are the slingshots.
Those were terrible and really ruin the game.

you mean slingshots in the tech tree? i dont get it

 

[anandus]

you mean slingshots in the tech tree? i dont get it

Yes, indeed. Or the wonder->great person->next wonder/new tech slingshots (I'm looking at you Pisa)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yes, indeed. Or the wonder->great person->next wonder/new tech slingshots (I'm looking at you Pisa)

While I didn't like them that much either, that wasn't a new thing to Civ 5. And unless every tech is bland and kind of sameish I think you might always have these to some degree or another, though it would be great to minimize them.

 

[Thormodr]

One of the things I really really hope are gone from Civ 5 are the slingshots.
Those were terrible and really ruin the game.

Agreed. They were horrifically dull.

 

[shakabrade]

yeah because combat was based on random numbers and you can have 99% change and till lose.. Or it was more like who atacks first. if you both have trebuches just sucide trebuches and kill their army. To be honest combat system wasnt that great.

It wasn't that random. 99% means that if you take that fight 100 times, the most expected outcome is 99 wins and 1 loss. You can still lose even 3 units or lose none, but it is almost impossible you'll lose 40 times. That's how odds work.
It is funny how noone complains when they win 3 70% fight in a row (34% chance for that to happen).
Also, although your first unit may die at 99% percent, but the remaining defender will most likely be almost dead and you'll only need to mop it up. That is why you bring more troops into an offense.
Ok, there is one case where game trolls you: it can't really calculate odds when first strikes are included in the mix. It underestimates them. Since all Archery units have first strikes, they are all actually a little bit more powerful.

Anyway, playing both games, I am sure Civ4 is more tactical. Your placement is much more important as units are also slower and can't be all around the battlefield. Also, it is more realistic to have massive army. I mean Russians literally bumped into stronger (and more expensive) german tanks at full speed to roll them over, and did so successfully. Mass of army means a lot in real life. And when you have masses, you cannot lose because you had some unlikely losses. How come people who are really good at the game never lose games because of luck factor?

In Civ5 you have Super Artillery to win you the game, relatively strong unit in front to defend it, and one mounted unit to reveal you the terrain as super promoted Arty has ridiculous range and damage. I usually had 3 and they chewed Deity AIs for breakfast.

 

[shakabrade]

I hope that Civ 5 will be able to function without City States.

 

[cephalo]

Mechanically a single tech tree has always been problematic, and perhaps most so in Civ IV due to the link between religion and tech. Specific governments/civics appearing at set points on the tree lead to stereotyped progression that has to hit tech A at point B. However you arrange the tree, this will remain an issue as long as every game system is ultimately underpinned by the tech tree. Never mind that having things like Divine Right, Code of Laws or Military Tradition as "technologies" was always conceptually awkward, even without the absurdity of things like Prophecy in Civ III.

I disagree with this paragraph. I think religion is well placed in the tech tree, as it is a concept that arises from a certain circumstance like everything else. Finding certain optimal paths through the tree is possibly a problem, but only a minor one, as you do have to play and research quite a bit to find them, certainly getting your money's worth in the process. In any case, I think this is solved adequately when the map has more of an impact on the direction you choose as seems to be the case in Civ6.

 

[Mustakrakish]

City-states as they were implemented in V was bad IMO. But there's hope it will be better in VI based on what we saw. But I'm still worried about militaristic city-states. They were absolute worst of the bunch and now extra production towards units, that's not much better than unit gifts. I'd like militaristic CS to be a little more than that, to be aggressive, periodically launching raids (not conquest!) on neighboring city-states, as well as being "for sale" to attack a major civ, without being your ally, for a price of gold that would depend on target civ might. They should also be incredibly tough with some very good promotions for their units, higher production rate for units, as well as higher base strength for the city, so you couldn't just take them out nearly as easily as any other city-state.

Obviously you shouldn't be able to buy an attack on their Suzerain, but also they'd follow special rules and not be automatically at war with Suzerain's enemies. Basically, muscle for hire to the highest bidder. When attack on you is bought, they would launch one raid party on you (5-6 units), when that raid party is countered (destroyed) or certain amount of turns pass (say 15), they automatically "sign peace" and leave your lands. You could also "counter" them by giving "tribute", a higher amount of gold that they got for attacking you.

You can find out whom sent them against you and get "casus belli" against that civ with high enough espionage rate / access level or whatever it was called.

Basically an angry formidable manageable entity on the map. Maybe they could also offer unique mercenary units...

 

[stealth_nsk]

Having 1 tree vs. 2 trees is quite complex thing to discuss, like:

1. Having 1 tree means huge advantage for civs with higher science, so there should be a lot of different gameplay mechanic contributing to the science and whose who don't do it should provide comparable advantages.

2. Having 2 trees makes balancing them very difficult.

3. The second tree didn't appear out of nowhere - there were social policies of Civ5. So we're actually comparing more than 2 systems - 1 tree vs. 2 trees vs. 1 tree with something else...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

o, nice thread.
Clearly, I would like to get rid of the "science from population" concept. This, together with the crazy warmonger penalty and asymmetric diplomacy (when AI was offering crappy deals or demanding withdrawal of my troops when there was no good answer to that) was the worst part of civ V.

Also, I do not understand why people are unhappy with random things like battle outcomes or events... perhaps this has something to do with multiplayer.

RNG forces the players in a strategy game to make risk-adjusted choices based on potential returns.

By itself, that isn't bad. In fact, RNG done well will let a player hedge choices and come out on top in spite of RNG in the vast majority of cases.

Civ 4's huge failing with RNG was when you could have game-altering or even game winning/losing outcomes depend on a single dice roll or small set of them. By design, civ 4 mitigated that in combat with collateral to balance against RNG, but collateral wasn't there for ancient wars. This is one area where civ 5 is soundly better than civ 4 in its design and implementation. You will never lose because someone sent 2 inexpensive units at you and you got unlucky attacking it with more of counter units.

Events were a different boat, mostly. Most events were more nuisance than serious, though their relatively limited agency and lack of any new decision making in the gameplay made their role questionable. A few awful ones like pre-patch Vedic Aryans and tsunamis, and Bermuda triangle to this day can ruin a game outright.

 

[qwerty25]

Having 1 tree vs. 2 trees is quite complex thing to discuss, like:

1. Having 1 tree means huge advantage for civs with higher science, so there should be a lot of different gameplay mechanic contributing to the science and whose who don't do it should provide comparable advantages.

2. Having 2 trees makes balancing them very difficult.

3. The second tree didn't appear out of nowhere - there were social policies of Civ5. So we're actually comparing more than 2 systems - 1 tree vs. 2 trees vs. 1 tree with something else...

Semi agree with you. Though I find two trees easier to balance than one.

With the science tree, it was just impossible for the social policies to catch up. It was as if science gave exponential returns and culture gave flat returns. Or put another way culture was just seen as a way to garner more science (which is why rationalism is so powerful). Theres no similar rational to go heavy into techs that give culture (operahouse etc) unless going for a culture victory.

The new civ 6 mechanic emphasizes staying in line with each tree. Like bonus=square root(science×culture)

So you are met with marginally diminishing returns for running ahead with one tree or another. Examples would be the eureka bonuses that require you to have the policy first.

 

[LDiCesare]

But what is the point of having 2 trees?
Making culture useful? If that's all it does, we don't need culture.
Giving different development paths/options, as going culture vs going science? I could accept that although it could also be done with a single tech tree with different branches.
Why force the players to use different beakers?
If one tree is better than the other, then resources will be put towards that tree at the detriment of the other. Balancing seems indeed more difficult to me. Culture will provide other benefits (grabbing land), so science should be stronger as it won't have other benefits, but I can't see what this really brings. It may end up being interesting, but it means less dilemmas in terms of tech and more choices in terms of what kind of improvement/specialists to have, so more micromanagement.

 

[PhilBowles]

The Haudenosonee people (Iroquois) have had (and still have) a Constitution of more than one hundred articles for at least three centuries without having discoverd writing.

The Iroquois Confederacy was a development influenced by contact with American colonists, not a truly indigenous institution. By three hundred years ago these groups had contact with people who had discovered writing and had the concept of a constitution. It was much more of a 'natural' evolution of their society by local cultures incorporating lessons learned from elsewhere than the colonial states, but it wasn't something that would ever have evolved in the absence of contact with Europeans.