One of the things that frustrated me greatly with previous Civ versions is that Mods written for Windows almost never worked on the Mac. Does anyone know if this time around that has been addressed? I would really love it if I could just download any mod and feel comfortable that it will work on the Mac.
Using Mods on the Mac
- Thread starter rabber
- Start date
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
Will we have modbuddy on mac version ?
Will we have the sdk tool ?
Will we have the sdk tool ?
From what I've found out so far we shouldn't have any incompatibilities with xml, lua or graphics based mods. C++ based mods (i.e all the biggest, most popular mods) are a complete unknown factor as the C++ SDK has not been released for Windows yet either. Given Aspyr's history with Civ and other games, I'm not optimistic.
Given Modbuddy requires a Windows IDE and would thus require being remade completely for Xcode or some other environment I suspect we won't be getting Modbuddy. SDK is even more unlikely. I'm sure we'll get WorldBuilder though.
Aspyr have shown time and time again that they are not particularly interested in supporting anything but the 'main game' (and even then they refuse to fix reported bugs). I've asked them numerous times via email and their twitter channel but zero response so far.
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
Feel myself bad with this bad thing
I ask myself if i stay on Macintosh or switch back on Windows...
Because i consider myself that Civ 5 is a worthy game for making some sacrifice for it...
Feel myself bad with this bad thing
I ask myself if i stay on Macintosh or switch back on Windows...
Because i consider myself that Civ 5 is a worthy game for making some sacrifice for it...
Well in my opinion Civ5 isn't worth it at all even on Windows. It's pretty but very unbalanced, the AI is absolutely terrible, and just doesn't have even a fraction of the replay value of the previous Civ games. Will take a lot more than mods to fix it. Huge disappointment.
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
Permit to me to disagree on this point of AI : because i played Civ 4 BTS and your mod, i played as usually at level fair 50/50 regent/noble...
And i discovered my level of game was better...
And i discovered my level of game was better...
Maybe we should sign a certain type of email ("of request") to Aspyr together, if you are adressing something of just common Mac user's interest? If there are ten or fifty signatures under that statement, maybe they will pause their hypocrisy for a moment and remember, oh right, there are actually real people we are doing this for, who will not neccessarily spit us in the face right away, but maybe congratulate us for our good professional work after all. Is that a naïve thought?
You are most welcome to disagree with me
It's not a case of difficulty levels though. The AI really struggles with the 1UPT - they should be hiding their ranged units behind their melee but so often they do the opposite. They also have no clue how to use mounted units and indeed very rarely build them. They'll split ranks to chase down a worker or settler and all sorts of stupid behaviour making them easy to defeat. I'm not much of a warmonger or tactician but I find the AI ridiculously easy to outwit in battle, even on the hardest difficulty levels. While it's cool defeating an army twice the size of yours it's not fun when you can do it nearly all the time.
They also struggle with infrastructure in their cities. For example, I've seen countless cases where an enemy city has trading posts everywhere but will never build a market to capitalize on them. Stuff like this should not be happening in a game of Civilization's calibre. It's the sort of thing you expect in a beta, not a released game.
Diplomacy is the other factor I intensely dislike, though it's a matter of preference here rather than poor coding. The AI are made to act like human opponents, out to win the game no matter what. I thought this sounded cool when I first read about it but in practice it's not very fun as leaders don't really have the same sense of 'personality' that they do in Civ4. They're supposed to have unique tactics but to me it feels like they all play the same way. Very little of what you do in diplomacy has any real effect (except with city-states - which I do like a lot) and none of the leaders can be trusted. To me it feels like all my games are multiplayer games but against fairly unskilled opponents.
I'm not trying to turn people off Civ5, except maybe to say 'try before you buy' (if you can). It's quite different from Civ4 and has divided the community here on CFC considerably (see the main Civ5 discussion forum). My feelings are that Civ5 targets a much narrower range of players than previous versions did. Those that fall in that range love it and that's awesome for them, but those that fall outside, like myself, are disappointed.
We could certainly try. I imagine though, now that it's November and Mac Civ5 is due for release on the 23rd that it's now too late to do anything before release. I imagine Aspyr are busy with last minute checks, getting the discs pressed, planning distribution etc.
Lets see how it looks once it's out and then see what sort of petition could work.
Lachlan
Great Builder of Civs !
You are most welcome to disagree with me
It's not a case of difficulty levels though. The AI really struggles with the 1UPT - they should be hiding their ranged units behind their melee but so often they do the opposite. They also have no clue how to use mounted units and indeed very rarely build them. They'll split ranks to chase down a worker or settler and all sorts of stupid behaviour making them easy to defeat. I'm not much of a warmonger or tactician but I find the AI ridiculously easy to outwit in battle, even on the hardest difficulty levels. While it's cool defeating an army twice the size of yours it's not fun when you can do it nearly all the time.
They also struggle with infrastructure in their cities. For example, I've seen countless cases where an enemy city has trading posts everywhere but will never build a market to capitalize on them. Stuff like this should not be happening in a game of Civilization's calibre. It's the sort of thing you expect in a beta, not a released game.
Diplomacy is the other factor I intensely dislike, though it's a matter of preference here rather than poor coding. The AI are made to act like human opponents, out to win the game no matter what. I thought this sounded cool when I first read about it but in practice it's not very fun as leaders don't really have the same sense of 'personality' that they do in Civ4. They're supposed to have unique tactics but to me it feels like they all play the same way. Very little of what you do in diplomacy has any real effect (except with city-states - which I do like a lot) and none of the leaders can be trusted. To me it feels like all my games are multiplayer games but against fairly unskilled opponents.
I'm not trying to turn people off Civ5, except maybe to say 'try before you buy' (if you can). It's quite different from Civ4 and has divided the community here on CFC considerably (see the main Civ5 discussion forum). My feelings are that Civ5 targets a much narrower range of players than previous versions did. Those that fall in that range love it and that's awesome for them, but those that fall outside, like myself, are disappointed.
The fact that AIs play as if we are in a classic multiplayer game is fun, after an initial disappointment, i found that would be more logic after all considering things : why ? Because in multiplayer Humans are far less fair-play than AIs, even AIs of Civ 5...
I recognize that i have liked Civ Revolution on consoles, it was a looong time that i have had not the pleasure to finish a game, because Civ Rev functioned without saccades like in last turns of Civ IV, II or even V (if you have not so good configuration for this game)...
Civilization V is though to play in multiplayer , but we can play a pseudo-multiplayer with AI actings like Humans, after all, the History is not made in marble, what if the Historic leaders have known a different setting of themselves...
After all, for the moment, Civ 5 is about recreating History, not simulating It...
But with modbuddy and the two or three others tools packed in the sdk, we could recreating an Earth in 1000 AD, 100 AD or 2000 AD, but after ? The game will run not like in real History, because we know by advance that will be have by the future...
So, i consider that Civ 5, even unpolished, is a good piece and better than numerous computer games...
Unique problem, the material needed...
It claims a solid computer...
EDIT 1 : And the hexagons ? Nice things these hexagons, do you agree ?
Similar threads
