To Those Wishing For The Demise Of Civ 5

[da_Vinci]

Ahh, yes. The much-anticipated "You only wanted Civ 4.5" argument. I was wondering when it would rear its ugly - and I do mean UGLY - head.

So the flip side of that coin is "the only people happy with Civ 5 are those that hated Civ 4." We know such an absurd remark is ridiculous,

This is a bit of a logical fallacy. If I say that PC gamers are the only people who can hate consoles. It doesn't imply that the only people who can love consoles are those who hate PCs. There's no logical connection. You can argue one or the other statement without having one imply the other.

Detour for logic review:

Statement: If A, then B
Converse: If B, then A
Inverse: If not A, then not B
Contrapositive: If not B, then not A

The only thing that holds by logical form is that if the statement is true, then its contrapositive must be true (or both must be false). No guarantees about converse or inverse. One more spin: Note that the inverse is the contrapositive of the converse , so they are true or false together.

So if we take the statement "If you hate (dislike, criticize) Civ 5, then you wanted Civ 4.5", then the contrapositive would be "If you didn't want Civ 4.5, then you don't hate (dislike, criticize) Civ 5". Note that both statements are proven false by one instance of a person who did not want Civ 4.5 but still has issues with Civ 5.

POM's example restates as (first statement) "Every console hater is a PC gamer", or "If you hate consoles, then you must be a PC gamer."

Second statement: "All console lovers are PC haters", or "If you don't hate consoles, then you must not be a PC gamer.

The second statement is the inverse, of the first, and it certainly does not follow that if the first is true, then the inverse must be true.

So is SuperJay's "flip side" statement the inverse, or the contrapositive, of the notion that "If you hate (dislike, criticize) Civ 5, then you wanted Civ 4.5"?

"the only people happy with Civ 5 are those that hated Civ 4." (SuperJay's flip side) is equivalent to which of the following:

"If you didn't want Civ 4.5 (or don't like civ 4), then you don't hate (dislike, criticize) Civ 5" (contrapositive), or

"If you like Civ 5, then you hate Civ 4" (inverse)? It is this one, since if the only people happy with civ 5 are the civ 4 haters, then hating civ 4 is necessary for liking civ 5, and thus hating civ 4 follows from liking civ 5.

Back to main road ...

dV

 

[Zydor]

Whatever you are on - I dont want any

Regards
Zy

 

[da_Vinci]

Whatever you are on - I dont want any

Regards
Zy

That's fine, I am saving it for PoM.

(Your avatar seems to be smoking enough on his own, anyway )

dV

 

[Zydor]

Gallactic Pot - its all the rage, its a Planet Zargon Specialty

Regards
Zy

 

[blind biker]

Gallactic Pot - its all the rage, its a Planet Zargon Specialty

Regards
Zy

In Amsterdam, in one of those cofeeshops (Central is the name, and it's a very fine place) they have these Space Cakes.


Word of advice: do NOT take two at once. Even if you think you're badass.

 

[Quillur]

Thing is us, old hands, have played so much Civ I, Civ 2, Civ 3 and Civ IV that, by now, we have memorized the computer's moves, trends and strategies, and can easily defeat it even in the highest difficulty level.

I already noticed it with Civ IV, when I started at Prince and the game seemed very, very easy to me.

Lucky those who are only now exposed to these games. They'll enjoy them for a longer time. But for us, we demand the one thing we cannot have: very smart AI, capable of matching the experienced player.

But computers are limited, following repeated patterns and unable to modify their strategy like we can. That's why I think playing online may be the future of the game. Which can start by simplifying things (as indeed happens in Civ V).

That, or the invention of self-teaching algorithms. Whichever comes first. TBS games are not made to be played online, though. Unless you have a small world, only three or four civs, and the game lasts only about 70 fast turns (7 to 8 hours), tops.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

There are *TWO* entirely different projects for X-Com remakes;

1-- 2K-Marin from Australia already has a teaser site up & running to push out their FPS attempt.

2-- While Firaxis has yet to release any information on their own TBS development scheduling.

Read this at GameSpot for further details!

 

[Hormagaunt]

Master of Magic is the father of the "strategic game with tactical battles" and is still awesome, 15 years after the release. If not for the Civ5-like AI (you WILL get DoWed randomly), and the imbalance, it would still be about perfect.

Hmm. Came out in 1994, right? I always thought "Uncharted Waters" which came out in 1991 (1992 on the PC) did it first. Or maybe the boardgame "Titan" (which came out in 1980). But I assume you figure boardgames don't really count.

 

[markantony]

Yup.... It continues to puzzle me that Jon and company never seemed to quite realize that the old SSI titles they got this concept from were tactically scaled maps and you cannot just plug-and-play a tactical concept onto a strategic map.

I guess it took me a few weeks -- and a re-install of an old PG clone (Pacific General) -- until it hit me, but it was like a ton of bricks... an "Ah-ha! No wonder this isn't working!"

I said this a while back in my "Seriously dissapointed" thread.

A roman Legion does not take up the same amount of space as a tank. Neither take up the same amount of space as London.

Look at Machester, its about 45 square miles. This mean that to have an army of 10 units requires a 450 squre miles to muster!

The answe would seem to me to either, limit the stacks or to have a seperate tactical map to plau out the battles.

 

[Akka]

Hmm. Came out in 1994, right? I always thought "Uncharted Waters" which came out in 1991 (1992 on the PC) did it first. Or maybe the boardgame "Titan" (which came out in 1980). But I assume you figure boardgames don't really count.

Well, I'm talking about video games, so I don't really count boardgame, yep ^^
As for Uncharted Waters, I simply never heard about it. Going to check and see what's like.

 

[Hormagaunt]

Well, I'm talking about video games, so I don't really count boardgame, yep ^^
As for Uncharted Waters, I simply never heard about it. Going to check and see what's like.

I've still got it on my machine. It won't run, but I've got it. Sooner or later I should really look into setting it up to run under XP emulation.

Synopsis: You're a young man. You've inherited an old ship, a small crew, and a bit of cargo. You leave Lisbon, deliver cargo, buy more, bring it back, sell it, rinse and repeat. Along the way you'll be exploring and gradually expanding your efforts. Sooner or later you'll run into pirates, or privateers, or whoever. The game drops from world view into a tactical combat view where you maneuver your fleet against the opponents, trying to capture or sink them.

 

[PawelS]

According to the DOSBox site, both Unchated Waters 1 & 2 work with it. (Part 1 works with an older version of DOSBox - 0.65)

 

[Hormagaunt]

According to the DOSBox site, both Unchated Waters 1 & 2 work with it. (Part 1 works with an older version of DOSBox - 0.65)

Never used DOSBox; I'll have to look into that.

Nothing says fun like having 5 ships loaded with pepper and trying to dodge pirates when you're in irons. Unlucky for them, I carry large crews so I can take prizes.

 

[PawelS]

Hmm, I remember an even older game called "Pirates of the Barbary Coast", I played it on my 8-bit Atari IIRC it had some kind of tactical battles too.

 

[Hormagaunt]

Set sail from Lisbon with a load of olive oil, found London, bought porcelain at 61, hauled it back and sold it for 106. Made a good bit of profit! Who needs Civ5? I'm gonna be a merchant king!

(Game shows a copyright date of 1991.)

PS: I think I may try reinstalling Civ2.

 

[Canpolat]

"PS: I think I may try reinstalling Civ2. "

Maybe you should think about not posting in this topic!

Sorry for the harsh words but you seem to be more wishing back your youth than a good game.

Maybe I should install Doom to get a good 3D Shooter again! Maybe I should install TIE Fighter to get a good Fighting Simulation again and maybe I should install Command & Conquer 1 to get a good Strategy again!

Face it guys! we are old! Firaxis cant afford to listen to us. Because if they would, then we would get Civ2 for the rest of the series....which in that case wouldn´t last very long.

I didnt like Civ 4 at all! yet I never had the urge to <rhymes with stitch> about it (okay once... ). I just sticked with Civ3 and mods...quietly!

 

[bryanw1995]

I agree with the OP. This forum needs more constructive criticism, and less pointless whining.

I remember the time after the release of Elemental (which was in much worse condition than Civ5 on release IMO), and the Stardock forum was full of elaborate and professionally written lists of suggestions how to make the game better. Such things help the devs to make good patches, expansions and Civ6, bashing the game totally has the opposite effect.

agreed

 

[bryanw1995]

I *have* helped them. They've got my money.

And to be honest, recommending this game at the current state to a potential customer is like guiding him into a pit trap.

try playing thallasicus' balanced mod pack. ics is nerfed, horseman rush is nerfed, in fact I'd wager that the devs have been playing this b/c many of the #2 patch's improvements look to mimic this.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

i notice no one of your statements about the patch,that has a lot to be released, and the mods now, not to be mean to the developers, are quite useless.... I'll wait one year from now to see the improvement, i think that's the right amount of time to expect some real game enhancement by mods or expansions...

In the meantime i'll play some good strategy game like Victoria 2...

 

[Weson102]

If your running a company and a 'few' customers have a minor complaint then you try to solve their problem with a patch.

If 'many' customers are complaining they don't like the new product(Civ V) and liked one of old products(civ II, III,or IV) better, a great deal of attention must be paid to a possible remake.

Your company has a problem and how you solve the problem(s) and satisfy your customers will have a direct bearing on the future of the Civ franchise. Don't throw some patches at the problem and hope for the best.

I became a Civ player because my favorite game did not improve on their new release and that was MOO III. The company's MOO franchise ended.

Remember, when a customer complains it is a GOOD thing and A CONSTRUCTIVE thing.

It shows you that the fans care and still hope for a better product in the future.