Thoughts on the port to Civ 5

[HadesScorn]

Oh! Have you gotten past the part in DNF where it's just a screen that says "we stole investors' money"? I've spent literally days stuck at that part.

 

[CyberChrist]

Looking closer at the total sum of outlined changes in the basic functionality of ciV then I am finding it hard to see myself rushing off to play it - let alone mod it - any time soon(if at all). So whether there is going to be a FfH3 version made for it or not, is not really a matter of great urgency on my part.

Of course they still have time to wise up and adjust some of their more ill-advised changes, but I doubt that is likely to happen.

 

[Senethro]

Looking closer at the total sum of outlined changes in the basic functionality of ciV then I am finding it hard to see myself rushing off to play it - let alone mod it - any time soon(if at all). So whether there is going to be a FfH3 version made for it or not, is not really a matter of great urgency on my part.

Of course they still have time to wise up and adjust some of their more ill-advised changes, but I doubt that is likely to happen.

Yes, I'm sure that you know better than Firaxis what makes a good game. In fact their changes are so ill-advised that they should have made a 3rd expansion instead of a new game.

 

[Zongo]

Some of the proposed changes are, to me, very attractive. Hexagons and one-unit-per-tile are great. Different research paths are good.

Still, the nations and leaders choice is rather poor, while not as poor as in the past. Seriously, America is not a civilization, it is the name of a continent No religion, and I would guess no corporations too, is quite the bummer.

As I mentioned, I expect that expansions will take care of most issues.

I am looking forward to scale concept which drive city specialization, like religion and corporation were. I did not really care much about what they represented, I just liked that they made my cities different from one another.

I always waited for the day civs could dinamically change with time - and appropriate decisions. One starts with the Celts for instance, then morphs into England if the appropriate decision is taken after the establishment of open borders with someone, then into Great Britain after a diploannexation, then into the United States (of Wherever) after a succesful revolution OR secession.

 

[Valkrionn]

Shush, play along.

Yeah, Valkrionn has an advance copy of Civ 5. He doesn't have much time to play it, though, in between all those Duke Nukem Forever marathons.

Totally. The retro 32-bit graphics are absolutely amazing, Civ is moving in the right direction.

 

[CyberChrist]

Yes, I'm sure that you know better than Firaxis what makes a good game. In fact their changes are so ill-advised that they should have made a 3rd expansion instead of a new game.

While your sarcasm is apparent, I nevertheless agree with you on both points.

 

[Senethro]

Godspeed then on your efforts to save 4X gamers everywhere from the foolish meddling of the Firaxis apostates. To change is to err. Civilization should adopt the business method of EA Sports franchises and release a graphically updated Civilization each year with slightly different team colours and rosters.

Enough with the sarcasm. Do you have to preach to us about all the failings of a game you know barely anything about yet? I would say something about the value of innovation but that you genuinely want more expansion packs shows you place little value there. I would be horrified if I discovered I'd turned into one of those people who were unable to move on from Civ3 (or one author, or one fiction genre).

I shouldn't have bothered with this post but the smugness radiating off you is nauseating.

 

[CyberChrist]

oops double post for some reason ?

 

[CyberChrist]

@Senethro:
I really have no clue where your offensive rantings are comming from or are about. Noone here is talking about Civ3.

The confirmed information that are already available about the ciV core features is giving a fairly clear picture that it will be somewhere between hard to impossible to port most of the mods currently available for cIV - and that is what this thread is about.

Personally I'd rather that Firaxis had spent extra effort refining the concepts of ciV rather than 'innovatively' making Civ take a large step towards becomming a tactical wargame (more than a faint shadow of Panzer General touching the currently revealed mechanichs).

It was ofc only logical that such refinements would take shape in a new incarnation of civ (ciV) so that they could upgrade the gfx engine etc. at the same time, but some of the new 'innovations' (as you call them) are IMO indeed ill-advised.

As for true innovation then my money would go to people like Kael & Co for making brilliant stuff like FfH any day.


Btw, then I find it ironic that you are raging against expansions packs "with slightly different team colours and rosters", yet at the same time seem to fall to your knees in blind admiration before ciV that you by your own admission know little about ...
... except for the fact that it will contain more or less exactly the same teams as in the 4 previous incarnations of Civ ... with slightly different colours and rosters.

 

[Senethro]

I mentioned Civ3 because those guys who never give up telling us how things were better then are as close to having an objectively wrong opinion as it is possible to be in this community. I thought there was also a parallel with your assumption that everything new is bad.

The idea that mods should be ported AS IS and that this is a highly desirable characteristic in Civ5 is preposterous. We already have FFH2, we don't need FFH2 in a new engine. Make a tribute mod instead.

The inclusion of elements traditionally associated with wargames ARE the concepts they're choosing to refine. Don't you remember Soren Johnson and his 1/3rd old, 1/3rd new and 1/3rd reworked?

I'm not blindly admiring Civ5, I'm agnostic with regard to it because we lack the required knowledge to judge it at this time. I am fully supportive of Firaxis refusal to rest on their laurels and make an unnecessary repeat sequel. Even if Civ5 turns out to be bad the attempt was good.

I also don't care about the civs in it and would be happy to have randomly generated civs and leaders. The game is what interests me, not the history associated with it.

 

[Valkrionn]

I mentioned Civ3 because those guys who never give up telling us how things were better then are as close to having an objectively wrong opinion as it is possible to be in this community. I thought there was also a parallel with your assumption that everything new is bad.

The idea that mods should be ported AS IS and that this is a highly desirable characteristic in Civ5 is preposterous. We already have FFH2, we don't need FFH2 in a new engine. Make a tribute mod instead.

The inclusion of elements traditionally associated with wargames ARE the concepts they're choosing to refine. Don't you remember Soren Johnson and his 1/3rd old, 1/3rd new and 1/3rd reworked?

I'm not blindly admiring Civ5, I'm agnostic with regard to it because we lack the required knowledge to judge it at this time. I am fully supportive of Firaxis refusal to rest on their laurels and make an unnecessary repeat sequel. Even if Civ5 turns out to be bad the attempt was good.

I also don't care about the civs in it and would be happy to have randomly generated civs and leaders. The game is what interests me, not the history associated with it.

I couldn't have said it better. FfH is great. That said, I have no desire (and I rather doubt anyone else does) to remake it as is for a new civilization. The very ability to do that is a bad one, IMO... Because if you can port it straight over, than why the hell would you make a new game?

From what we've heard of Civ5, it will have more tactics... And that's a good thing. I hate SoD warfare.

 

[CyberChrist]

You are missing the point, which is that there are parts of the current FfH mod (and other mods) that WOULD be desireable to include in a new version for ciV, but that simply wont be possible due to the way the revealed ciV mechanisms are reportedly going to work.

The intent to handle, reduce and maybe even completely eliminate the SoD problem is a noble and worthy task indeed, but going to the extreme of introducing seemingly hardcoded limits like "max 1 unit per tile/plot" is just shooting fleas with cannons - and it WILL generate far more new problems than it solves (and reintroduce a few old ones as well).

Of course there is always the chance that those reporting these features have misunderstood how they are actually intended to function, but now is the time to voice concerns about the currently perceived functions - since once the game goes gold (and probably even a good deal earlier than that) it will be too late to correct any unintended oversights.


Personally then I always found the 3x 1/3 argument to be a bit too arbitrary and saying little at best. In any case then afaik Soren Johnson isn't in charge of ciV anyway.

 

[Valkrionn]

You are missing the point, which is that there are parts of the current FfH mod (and other mods) that WOULD be desireable to include in a new version for ciV, but that simply wont be possible due to the way the revealed ciV mechanisms are reportedly going to work.

The vast majority of FfH's features are simply not compatible with the standard Civ game. The few which are have generally been the province of modmods.

I may be wrong here of course, but for the most part I don't see many features of FfH ever moving to standard Civ.

The intent to handle, reduce and maybe even completely eliminate the SoD problem is a noble and worthy task indeed, but going to the extreme of introducing seemingly hardcoded limits like "max 1 unit per tile/plot" is just shooting fleas with cannons - and it WILL generate far more new problems than it solves (and reintroduce a few old ones as well).

Well, this all depends on how it's handled. Honestly, you have absolutely no grounds on which to say it will cause more problems than it solves. We have next to no knowledge of how it is being designed, and therefore simply cannot argue on it yet.

For all we know, there could be a "max 1 unit per unitcombat per tile". There are simply no specifics yet.

Of course there is always the chance that those reporting these features have misunderstood how they are actually intended to function, but now is the time to voice concerns about the currently perceived functions - since once the game goes gold (and probably even a good deal earlier than that) it will be too late to correct any unintended oversights.

Again, you have no basis on which to voice concerns whatsoever. We don't know how features will work, how it will be designed, nothing. Even if we had SOME kind of info, I honestly would not take any opinions into account, as the people voicing them have not used the mechanic, have not seen it in action, and have not checked it for exploits or issues.

Personally then I always found the 3x 1/3 argument to be a bit too arbitrary and saying little at best. In any case then afaik Soren Johnson isn't in charge of ciV anyway.

No, Jon Shafer is.

I think it's rather arbitrary (I dislike hard values like that, is all), but overall quite a good idea. Anything to avoid the crap EA puts out each year in the name of profits.

 

[CyberChrist]

@Valkrionn:
Heh, it doesn't sound like you have been researching the status of ciV very thoroughly. Maybe you ought to aim some of that "no grounds or basis" ammo at yourself for awhile - and go read some of the previews and officially released information.

Maybe then we can have a more civilized debate about the confirmed changes.

 

[Zongo]

@Valkrionn:
Heh, it doesn't sound like you have been researching the status of ciV very thoroughly. Maybe you ought to aim some of that "no grounds or basis" ammo at yourself for awhile - and go read some of the previews and officially released information.

Come on, what is known is not that bad.

Hexagons, one military unit per square and ranged combat could really deliver more tactical combat and kill SoDs.

No religion hurts at first, but let us see if there are some other scale mechanics to specialize cities not only nationally, but also internationally. I mean beyond wonders.

No spying means that an overpowered, AI-unfriendly and historically unrealistic (in that scale) option is removed.

No technology trading will hurt, but was also unrealistic and abused. Like, I meet the poor natives neighbouring my enemy, and in a couple of days I teach them to produce and use those much-needed machineguns? Research pacts may actually be an improvement.

Who knows, we could even get lucky and finally get that holy "building queue" editor to define, save and load our multiple customized building queues, which are of course automatically adapted to the technology available at any point of any game.

Finally, they need to leave a couple of must-have feature for the expansions, do they? Just wait a couple of years before buying, and get the patched, expanded "complete" bundle.

 

[CyberChrist]

Hexagons, one military unit per square and ranged combat could really deliver more tactical combat and kill SoDs.

Hexagons are just fine - in fact I am quite happy with this change (ditto with ranged combat). However, the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" pretty much brings us back to the days where friendly units could block friendly units (yes they can move through each other, but they still need an empty plot to end in). The SoD issue had to be dealt with certainly, but this solution is just nuts.

What really worries me about the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" issue is that this may be semi-hardcoded. As in: the AI would be clueless how to handle multiple units even if someone made a mod allowing them.

No religion ...
No spying ...
No technology trading ....

The whole point of making a new version - to me at least - is that it should end up BETTER than the previous versions.
While I would agree that all these features was in dire need of an overhaul then scrapping them altogether doesn't really add towards BETTER in my mind.

Research pacts may actually be an improvement.

Research Pacts does indeed sound like a nice idea, I don't necessarily see why one should exclude the other though (as in Research Pacts vs Tech Brokering).

Finally, they need to leave a couple of must-have feature for the expansions, do they? Just wait a couple of years before buying, and get the patched, expanded "complete" bundle.

Heh yeah you are probably right, that does seem to be their standard approach with the Civ formula.

 

[Valkrionn]

@Valkrionn:
Heh, it doesn't sound like you have been researching the status of ciV very thoroughly. Maybe you ought to aim some of that "no grounds or basis" ammo at yourself for awhile - and go read some of the previews and officially released information.

Maybe then we can have a more civilized debate about the confirmed changes.

Believe me when I say I've read up on it.

I still do not think we have any room for debating it yet. None of us have actually played the game, so none of us actually know how it works out in a game. Which was my principle point.

Hexagons are just fine - in fact I am quite happy with this change (ditto with ranged combat). However, the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" pretty much brings us back to the days where friendly units could block friendly units (yes they can move through each other, but they still need an empty plot to end in). The SoD issue had to be dealt with certainly, but this solution is just nuts.

Again, you know this will be a problem how? Do you not think that a situation like that would have been considered by Firaxis?

"You will be able to swap a unit out with one next to it during battle"

If you can do that, surely you can do the same while just moving around, no?

On the whole, I love their solution. It brings a bit (a lot) of micro with it, but it also brings tactics into the game on a level far beyond "Build giant stack of doom, kill everyone".

What really worries me about the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" issue is that this may be semi-hardcoded. As in: the AI would be clueless how to handle multiple units even if someone made a mod allowing them.

I really don't think they'd hardcode that in the exe. AI work is done in the DLL, which is accessible to modders. It may mean that some AI work will have to be done to allow multiple units/tile, but I'm not sure it will be necessary. You are allowed at the very least 3 units on a tile; Military, Civilian, Air.

The whole point of making a new version - to me at least - is that it should end up BETTER than the previous versions.
While I would agree that all these features was in dire need of an overhaul then scrapping them altogether doesn't really add towards BETTER in my mind.

And who are you to say that scrapping those features doesn't make room for new, BETTER features?

Honestly, I agree about religion. But it can and will be readded, though most likely in a very different form (Yes, we have plans. No, I will not discuss them ). Otherwise... Honestly, Guilds and Espionage were pretty much crap. I completely approve of their removal.

Religion was apparently removed as it was used in Civ4 to affect diplomacy, and they're changing diplomacy in Civ5.

Research Pacts does indeed sound like a nice idea, I don't necessarily see why one should exclude the other though (as in Research Pacts vs Tech Brokering).

This is something that we'd have to play and get a feel for. It may be that they decided both together was too strong, and kept the Research Pact as it enhances diplomacy.

 

[CyberChrist]

I still do not think we have any room for debating it yet. None of us have actually played the game, so none of us actually know how it works out in a game. Which was my principle point.

Do you also wait going to the dentist until after an aching tooth has turned black - or even fallen out of your mouth altogether?

MY point being that we need to speak up while there is still time to catch and correct potential flaws/problems - and not wait until it is too late to do anything about them.

Again, you know this will be a problem how? Do you not think that a situation like that would have been considered by Firaxis?

It is called experience coupled with the ability to envisage how all the known bits are likely to work together.

Firaxis are not omniscient gods you know and they have produced this problem before. All previous civ versions (1-3) had mechanisms that allowed for blocking other players units and all of them even allowed for stacking of your own units, but the problem was still there and was widely abused (AI stupidity, accidents and/or malicious intent).

So yes I think it is quite possible that the Firaxis dev team have not thought all of the implications of the currently revealed core system through to the point of realizing this.

"You will be able to swap a unit out with one next to it during battle"

If you can do that, surely you can do the same while just moving around, no?

The problem I have been trying to make you see is not about your OWN units, but the fact that you can block OTHER players units - including friendly ones - with the current "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism.

On the whole, I love their solution. It brings a bit (a lot) of micro with it, but it also brings tactics into the game on a level far beyond "Build giant stack of doom, kill everyone".

It isn't all that hard to come up with far better solutions to the SoD problem than by using one that reintroduce old mobility problems, adds to micromanagement and effectively reduce the freedom of modders.

I really don't think they'd hardcode that in the exe. AI work is done in the DLL, which is accessible to modders. It may mean that some AI work will have to be done to allow multiple units/tile, but I'm not sure it will be necessary.

I never said anything about the EXE, although I wouldn't rule it out.

What I tried to imply by saying "SEMI-hardcoded" was that the amount of work that will be required to rewire/mod the game to use a "multiple units per tile/plot" - that the AI can understand and handle properly - would probably be so massive that it might as well be hardcoded. There is certainly no way any casual modder would be able to accomplish this.

However, were they to include fully developed support for "multiple units per tile/plot" accessible to modders out-of-the-box then I wouldn't have any problem with them using the "only 1 unit per tile/plot" mechanism in the vanilla game.

You are allowed at the very least 3 units on a tile; Military, Civilian, Air.

Where did you hear/read this? All the reports I have seen are clearly stating "only 1 unit per tile/plot" with no further distinctions. And even if it is true then this in itself still wont do anything to solve the main problem of blockage abuse that comes with this mechanism.

And who are you to say that scrapping those features doesn't make room for new, BETTER features?

I still don't accept that you necessarily have to exclude the enhancement of old features in order to include new ones. There is plenty of room for both new and old alike.

I have to admit that this almost religious adherance to the 3x 1/3 rule is starting to annoy me a bit.

Honestly, Guilds and Espionage were pretty much crap. I completely approve of their removal.

Lucky you then, but personally I'd rather that they had shown some innovative skills and come up with ways to improve these features rather than just tossing them aside in resignation.

Of course there are always the expansions ...

 

[Senethro]

Its April. The release is for September if I remember correctly. Firaxis playtests as it develops. The features have obviously passed a lot of scrutiny already and the game will be in a fairly late beta stage. They're not going to do huge changes to the design now.

You're already too late but thats fine because you have absolutely no evidence that theres a problem. You go to the dentist when pathological symptoms present themselves. Currently we don't have any here or reasonable cause to think they'll appear.

So you're in a standoff where its your words and baseless assumptions vs. Firaxis word and track record. You're not going to win that one.

But I imagine you enjoy trying to cast yourself as the "lone voice of dissent", right? If you're wrong you get a good game, if you turn out to be right (which would be sheerly accidental as you've no evidence) you can say "I told you so".

 

[hbar]

For Chrissakes CC, accept the fact the Firaxis is not going to listen to you, that they are doing the best they can with the resources they have, and most importantly it is their game. Firaxis will make the game they want to make, and if you don't like it, you have many options; from not buying it to modding to forming your own game company and making the game you want to see.

If you really want to make this argument, go troll in the Civ V forum and stop hijacking this thread!

(Yeah, I know, its troll food, but I couldn't hold back any longer...)