Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Stefanskantine, Oct 6, 2010.
I play similar to this...I almost never go for an exploitive rush win.
I dont know of any exploiting gaming but enjoying my first Civ5 game experience more than my first game experience of civ4
the game mechanic is likely easier to understand than the complexing civ4
civ4 was very boring for me at the beginning as it came out the first years
and civ5 gives more simplified fun on first look and I think it will stay this way unless patches coming with more sophiscated features maybe to let it look more like civ4 had been
I only need a more powerful hardware equipment to see the beautiful graphic performance and music should be much better or do you hear good music in civi5??
Not sure what you found that complex about Civ4 vanilla? Now what made Civ4 so great wasn't Civ4 vanilla or even Civ4BTS, it was RoM mod that made it great. So yes I will agree with posters that Civ4BTS/RoM mod is better than Civ5 vanilla. But RoM is being developed for Civ5 and I've been reading many of the ideas for it and it will far exceed Civ4BTS/RoM when it is done (several months from now yes).
There are easy ways to win the game and everyone knows about them. I get that far in your statement. I'm not sure where the 'and will be patched' thing comes from.
As far as I can tell, people claim the game is too easy, but every strategy they cite as to being effective you cite as an exploit. Horsemen? Exploit. Not attacking the AI when they attack you? Exploit. Diplomacy tricks? Exploit.
At some point in a game, where are so many 'really effective' things you can do to win, how are you really even able to call something an 'exploit'. What does that even mean?
I think you are just proving their point. When you start adding rules like 'do not counterattack' to a game like this, it shows some pretty incredible flaws. I mean, counterattacking is sorta a normal part of this kind of game right?
What are you talking about? I've only called the domination rush an exploit PERIOD. Except of course if you do the domination rush and stop just short of the victory just to get the other victory condition achievements. That is the SAME THING as a domination rush to win. Is that confusing?
And I guess I don't care if people rush to victory and then never look back: their loss not mine. You can bury your head in the sand and go back to 4 but eventually you will have to come back as Civ5 is where all the great mods will be. By the way there is still a Civ3 crowd that never left and they huddle over there wringing their hands on that travesty that is Civ4. lol
Every Civ game, 1-5 and revolution, has been complex. Arguing which one is more or less so is foolish.
It had many more features than the former civ parts had and the way to get into all thesse features was not easy for me. And you were not able to use all efficiently and was wondering how good AI managed to expand and get strong (my impression as I played civ)
Well I think about mods of civ4 in general they are indeed intresting expansions to Vanilla Civ and I like to play new worlds and characters and units. But Vanilla is the base for mods therefore Vanilla made the mods great. Thats why you play mods because they make fun.
What I meant is, that for me Civ5 Vanilla made more fun then Vanillaciv4 was. Therefore I agreee with you that Civ4 mods made civ4 great but with base of vanilla civ4 that not to forget
Yeah maybe, but since Civ1 came out every later parts became complexer until civ5 came out with new surprisingly simpler system what Sid aimed to do so
That why Im not agreeing with threadstarter that civ5 is complexer than civ4
You said someone going for a diplomatic victory who counter attacks is exploiting, and then claimed he was caught in a lie. If counter attacking is 'stopping just short of domination victory' there is something deeply wrong.
Well, their victory, not yours, I guess is the right thing to say. We are discussing difficulty and complexity here. They are saying it is too easy to win. You say this isn't true because it isn't fun. One is objective (too easy to win with the rules the game gets) the other is subjective (not fun). I think you are both right. It is both too easy to win, and not fun!
Some people don't think chocolate tastes good. Some people don't think raw human flesh tastes good. Doesn't mean it is the same number of people.
I saw your post on the other thread, and it seems most of your complaints boil down to the idea that you only need to worry about Science to get a Science win, and the same for Culture/Diplomacy/Domination victories.
From a game design point of view, however, I just can't agree. I look at the changes to gold, culture, etc. and I see an attempt to make more of the basic elements of the game matter. If you think this is not the case currently, it would seem like it is more of a balance issue than a design issue.
I know you like having multiple effects per building, but I guess I really don't see how that makes your decisions any more difficult. If Civ V had buildings that game science and culture, and one of the "swimlanes" to victory was getting both science and culture, then the choice is easier than if these effects are separated. It seems to me that the important thing is the balance between the effects of the different buildings that matters.
Certain Civics combinations were quite obvious in Civ IV, as well, and I'd definitely have to be on the side that thinks switching was far too easy and obviated long-term planning. I would also be interested in seeing what a heavily-costed ability to switch would bring to Civ V. But I don't believe that a well-balanced game lays out the "proper" picks in advance. The needs of your empire will change - this is the essence of emergent gameplay. In principle, you should need to worry about changing needs when choosing early picks, and adjust to changing needs with later picks.
Properly-costed civic switches would achieve a similar thing, except you always have one and only one pick for each civic; they are not unlocked in the same way. (Tech unlocks more options, as with SPs).
Although I'm not responding directly to you as you were just repeating what zonk said on a previous thread, but one area I think is kind of silly to complain about are trivial things like building, civilization, improvement, and troop variety. Those things are the easiest things in the world to mod in. If you want a building that adds 2 culture, 1 science, has 0 cost, subtracts 2 hammers, and also gives you happiness an amateur modder could add that in in about 10 minutes...
And Civ4BTS looked like vanilla Civ 1 compared to all the bells and whistles RoM added in terms of additional buildings, resources, troops, etc. so if you are just worried about not enough variety of "things" that is easily modded and in fact many mods already exist that add these things. Civ5 has a better base for this as I've already seena mod that adds a hardwood strategic resource for example that limits the number of longbowmen you can build based on availabilty of this resource.
And one of the ideas I've seen in RoM is to make electricity a consumable resource as well that must be expended to build buildings, so you need to build more powerplants in your civ at some point or you wont be able to build more buildings. Civ4 couldnt do that...
Imagine taking a strategic bombing run on a big industrial city that had multiple power plants, so you can knock them out and shut down many of their buildings throughout their civilization. Man this is gonna rock...
Well, yes, those things are very easy to mod in. But they are certainly not easy to balance. I've given my reasons why both "single-benefit" and "multiple-benefit" buildings can be more/less obvious choices, just depending on different circumstances for the two different philosophies. So, personally, I'd glad they're trying something new, even if it amounts to being "as good" as Civ IV (how do you even quantify goodness)? Proper balance needs lots of time and lots of people, so on an individual level modding can only take you so far if you want to make a generally balanced game. (Balancing for individual playstyles may be easier).
The game is really unbalanced right now, so every good strategy you come up with is almost inevitably exploiting some AI defect.
Ok, then here is a challenge. Beat the game on the following settings: "Diety Difficulty, Standard Size, Standard Speed, Continents" without taking or razing a single city or even moving your troops into enemy territory. If you can beat it that way then you are pretty good at Civ5 I'd say...
Maybe you can make an exception to free captured city states only but still no taking or razing any civ cities.
And this is suposed to be fun? I don't get it. The whole idea with a game like Civ is that there are rules that you follow. I can't imagine that anyone would make up their own just to make the game more challenging.
And that is the problem with lots of the detractors: they simply just cannot imagine.
New Civ releases are not for the faint of heart nor for those without patience or imagination. You need to see the promise and positives and making your own rules is part of that. Just think of it as role playing a benevolent civilization that does not take over/raze cities and only goes to war to defend their territory or free those poor city-states. Play this way and it is very fun at the appropriate difficulty level, if you can imagine...
I also guess this is why Civ is different than Chess. I play chess to win in any way I can. I see Civ as more than just a game mechanic to beat. There are role playing aspects to it as well that don't exist in games like Chess.
Don't ask me to tie an arm behind my back so the game becomes playable. Don't ask me to do the developer's job. It's bad enough having the modders fix the game.
I agree with this, I play Civ to have a nice, long, slow empire build, I try to maintain good relations with my neighbors, even if I end up losing. Civ V succeeds exceptionally well for me in this regard. So did IV.
I played my second Civ V game on Immortal on a huge map with 12 players and won a domination victory. I don't know any rush tactics, I only made one actual DoW, all other times the AI would reliably declare war whenever it wasn't ready. I'd usually finish them off in the war, since they'd continue to pester me randomly otherwise - there's no vassal states and you can't trust them to act with any sense in diplomacy.
Is this what you mean by rushing? If I'm to hold back my military and just play against an AI that is only building an empire because of the huge bonuses it gets at this level, the game's about as enjoyable as playing tennis against a wall.
My last two games were on emperor and immortal and I won both with diplomatic victories (standard fractal). I didn't even "exploit" the AI with a horse rush. I researched bronze, calendar, sailing, and literacy before I got to the horseback riding line. In the immortal game I didn't even intend to go to war at that point, but Oda declared war on me and I razed 3 of his cities and kept his capital and all I had was a spearmen (upgrade from ruins), 2 archers, and 3 horsemen. That was the only war for me that game.
Separate names with a comma.