What's wrong with this picture?

[McLMan]

Again, you're missing the Big Picture. If you makes LOTS of Explorers, you aren't making any of the other things that helps a city to grow efficiently. No Workers. No Settlers/Colonists. No Clinics. No labs. Etc., et al.

In past Civs, a player could do a decent job of exploring the map AND getting his fair share of ancient ruins rewards with just 3 or 4 Scouts. Then in the late game, after cities have been built up into production powerhouses, he could crank out Archaeologists to exploit dig sites that were _already_ revealed. But in this version of Civ, it will take three, four, or five times as many exploration units to get the same kind of rewards. At the cost of ******ing the city development.

The problem is that given 4-7 AI opponents, about half will most likely concentrate on fast exploration while the other half will focus on Expeditions. If _you_ focus on side of the equation, you will miss out on the other side almost entirely.

That's what makes Civ games interesting. It's all about making choices, which have benefits and consequences, and then moving on with the results of your choices.

 

[Cymsdale]

That's what makes Civ games interesting. It's all about making choices, which have benefits and consequences, and then moving on with the results of your choices.

Yes, but choices shouldn't be obsoleted at particular game speeds.

 

[CaptainPatch]

This isn't CiV. This is BE.

In this you are pointedly wrong. The name of the game is "CIVILIZATION: Beyond Earth." It's claiming a connection to the Civ series, and as such, it implies a similarity to the set of game mechanics that makes a game a Civ and not some other 4X game like Galactic Civilizations or Endless Legend. A case may be made that Alpha Centauri wasn't a Civ game (though it pretty much was) because its title didn't claim any such connection. Here, the connection is very clearly stipulated. Even Colonization, despite being a very different environment still used nearly all of Civ's core mechanics. So the expectation is there for most of Civ's core mechanics to be likewise used in BE. Instead, what I see is a LOT of changes made for (as I see it) just for the sake of change.

To the suggestion of keeping the scouts and archaeologists as separate units (i.e., the criticism of combining them in one unit): Scouts were not a huge priority to me. I'd start with one, I might build a second (but the priority was a Warrior over a Scout anyway). After the very early game was over, I wouldn't build them. I would build a lot of Archaeologists (for obvious reasons). By combining them, the Explorer has a lot of vitality for a large part of the game. To me, that's a better option.

But do you think your "don't bother much with Scouts" approach was typical? I know that many, many players utilized Scouts specifically because when a Scout was upgraded with improved weapons, it gave them ranged units (Archers to begin with) that could ignore terrain movement penalties that could be used advantageously for the remainder of the game. To make your Civ strategy applicable, you would have to consider the effect if dig sites were revealed _immediately_ at the beginning of the game. Then you wouldn't have the freedom to not build Archaeologist until the late game when you have several high-production cities to pump them out. You would have to build them when all you had was your very new first city that was just beginning to develop its production capabilities. So then you would be forced to choose between city development, or pursuing dig site rewards. That alone would be a painful enough choice to make. But here we are also being forced to choose between LOTS of Supply pods, or just a few Expedition sites.

Stepping back and trying to be objective, it seems clear to me that there really was no need to combine the Scout with the Archaeologist. The two units performed distinctly different and separate functions. What is gained in game quality by doing a merger of the two? As opposed to what is lost by forcing a merged unit on the players? I am of the opinion that more is lost than is gained with this approach.

 

[Browd]

So you would prefer to revert to the CiV approach, where you build maybe a couple of scouts that are exclusively for scouting (in about half of my games, no scout pops an upgrade ruin, so that is just a happy bonus when that happens) and simultaneously build super-early archaeologists (much earlier than in CiV) that are consumed upon completion of their dig (so you have to keep building them)? Where are the hammers for this approach? Or do you also propose to cut the hammer cost of each in half?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think a good solution is to have Miasma not actually kill units, but harm them until their health reaches 1. Then, miasma still has the same tactical issues, but doesn't break at different game speeds.

This would help the AI not screw up too.

Well, that kills a lot of the tradeoff. I'm not sure I'm a fan.

What'll help the AI is to program them to move a unit that's about to die from a miasma tile to a non-miasma tile. That's not that difficult. The only flaw in my idea is if there's no non-miasma tile in reach. In that case, the unit can die and I'd have less of a problem with it because it's so uncommon.

What'll help a person is a "unit about to die from miasma" notification that occurs when the unit has 10HP left.

 

[Toranth]

Explorers do not lose their Expedition Module unless they complete the Expedition.

Also, the Explorer will restock on modules in any friendly city. So no, you never technically need to have more than one Explorer. In the case from the original post, you could have the Explorer on the Miasma until it was almost dead, then move off and heal, then move back to make more progress, and repeat.

 

[stiefel_ss]

If you want to get more excavation sites without the miasma then you have to rush the anti-miasma satellites. They're cheap to build and they have a wide range of effect. It's definitely more efficient than babysitting your explorer.

 

[CaptainPatch]

... and simultaneously build super-early archaeologists (much earlier than in CiV) that are consumed upon completion of their dig (so you have to keep building them)?

My preference would be to make the Archaeologists reusable. The requirement to return to base to restock Expedition modules would even be tolerable in that case.

 

[Selereth]

What'll help a person is a "unit about to die from miasma" notification that occurs when the unit has 10HP left.

No offense, but wouldn't that be dumbing down the game a bit? I mean maybe the developers wanted us to monitor our explorers to make sure they're not about to die; it forces us to remain alert and to take care of our units. Personally I don't have a problem with a lack of warning so if the developers ever did implement something like this in a future patch, then I'd prefer if they made it an option.

 

[Strickl3r]

Don't see the problem here, even if there would be tiles that just kill you instantly, it's an unknown planet for sids sake. THings are messy and dangerous and it takes some time to handle them.

If you get harmony for example your units wil only take 5 damage from that stuff + even deeper in that thing you get heal + 5, you don't even need to clear it or use a sattelite and if you don't want to go harmony guess what maybe you'll have to pass on that kind of explorations.

Also it has never been easier to get a lot of production, you can really build thing fast and squeeze in some additional explorers or you can just buy them.

 

[Cymsdale]

No offense, but wouldn't that be dumbing down the game a bit? I mean maybe the developers wanted us to monitor our explorers to make sure they're not about to die; it forces us to remain alert and to take care of our units. Personally I don't have a problem with a lack of warning so if the developers ever did implement something like this in a future patch, then I'd prefer if they made it an option.

Strategy games are about decision making, it's no more dumbing down to have an alert than it is dumbing down to show how many turns left you have on science research instead of making the player do the math themselves.

If the developers wanted us to be "alert", then I would hope the developers would think hard about what makes strategy games interesting and focus on that instead. The question of "do I move my unit off the miasma, or do I allow it to die for no reason" is not a compelling strategic question.

 

[CaptainPatch]

No offense, but wouldn't that be dumbing down the game a bit? I mean maybe the developers wanted us to monitor our explorers to make sure they're not about to die; it forces us to remain alert and to take care of our units. Personally I don't have a problem with a lack of warning so if the developers ever did implement something like this in a future patch, then I'd prefer if they made it an option.

This would be a reasonable contention if there was a Function key or UI button that brought up an info screen that listed all of the player's units that showed movement status (sleeping, moved, performing task, etc.) and health condition. That is essentially what the Military Adviser screen in every other Civ game was. If there is such a screen in CBE, I haven't found it yet.

"Reasonable" is located somewhere between "dumbed down" and "tedious make-work" which is what it is when a player has to scroll over the map every turn just to see what's happening with his 20+ units.

 

[LeppidKingAgain]

Miasma on a dig site is candy to a patient Harmony player, they were put there just for us.

 

[Louis XXIV]

No offense, but wouldn't that be dumbing down the game a bit? I mean maybe the developers wanted us to monitor our explorers to make sure they're not about to die; it forces us to remain alert and to take care of our units. Personally I don't have a problem with a lack of warning so if the developers ever did implement something like this in a future patch, then I'd prefer if they made it an option.

When people complain about dumbing down the game, it's usually about simplifying strategic options. However, the goal since Civ4 has been to eliminate needless micromanagement and busy work. Busy work isn't smarter gameplay, it's just more irritating gameplay.

 

[ggmoyang]

Stepping back and trying to be objective, it seems clear to me that there really was no need to combine the Scout with the Archaeologist. The two units performed distinctly different and separate functions. What is gained in game quality by doing a merger of the two? As opposed to what is lost by forcing a merged unit on the players? I am of the opinion that more is lost than is gained with this approach.

No, the game is more fun this way. Your problem is playing marathon speed, which Firaxis does not care. It works fine in normal speed.

 

[AriochIV]

If you abort an expedition, the Explorer's Expedition Module is not consumed. So you can move off, heal, then come back and finish it.