1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

You know what... I do want CIV IV.5!

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by RobAnybody, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,520
    Location:
    Madrid
    the more posts I read from rolo, the more I stop answering because he expresses my feelings much better (and civilized) than myself
     
  2. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    What really pisses me off, is that alot of people claim that CIV's is more of a wargame; while, in my opinion, war in CIV 5 is poorly executed :mad:
    (ofcourse; because the AI is so stupid and certain things (like units) way overpowered, for the "fun" sake)
     
  3. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    Many wargames are poorly executed!

    Let's say the AI gets fixed, properly positions units, and the resource/upkeep limiting factors are implemented.

    Would you agree then that it's just a wargame with expanded resource/tech/population options than most wargames?

    To me - there's a tipping point between a "Civilization" game and a "War Game" - and V crosses it. To be sure - a "Civilization" game could conceivably also tip the other direction, towards a SimCity/Tropico/Patrician trader or city builder game... but I don't think anyone would claim V came anywhere near that.
     
  4. Darwin's Bulldo

    Darwin's Bulldo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    First post here.

    Could a 'tactical mini-game', using hexes and 1UpT, be embedded in a more traditional 'Civ1-4 like' game? The larger game could use hexes (or not), but would allow for movement of combined military units (1 'army' or 'corps' sized unit per tile, with limits to prevent stack 'o doom) and civilians (more than 1 per tile?) at a empire-wide scale. The empire-wide things - diplomacy, city states, policies, (religion?), happiness, food production, general worker allocation, stay on this empire-scale map.

    When combat becomes necessary, the combined military unit is 'disassembled' and the pieces get to be set up in a more 'war-game like' map. This tactical map could be generated 'on-the-fly' using the larger map as a template for where the hill/rivers/city are located. Or it could be fixed at the time of city founding, perhaps.

    The flaw in Civ5 is that there are two incompatible scales - empire scale and tactical combat scale. I'm not convinced you can do both on the same map. At least not to the Civ-standard.

    I'm a cartographer when I'm not playing on the computer until too late in the evening, and a long time hex-based wargamer, going back to the AH board games in the '70s. I loved PanzerGeneral and it's sequels. I like that level of tactical combat - probably like the Civ5 designer does. But that's never been what I like about the Sid's games. Splitting that aspect out as I propose above just seems natural. Just a thought. It could even be an option for those who want to use it - more traditional combat for those who don't.

    I went back and played CivIV for grins last night. Actually was up until 1:30AM, having a blast. I haven't done that yet with Civ5.
     
  5. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Do you see a combination between both facts? :)

    :eek:
    " No information cheats" :lol:

    One could say, Shafer even didn't manage this one. :mischief:
     
  6. Mustakrakish

    Mustakrakish In 'Node' We Trust

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,520
    Location:
    Grainvillage, Finland
    Muhaha I might wanna try that civ4.5 mod.
    But what I really want to try is a fantasy mod for civ5, because if something, I think Civ5 is a very good platform for that, actually even better for that than the usual "progress through history" game.

    With social policies (that are already RPG like anyway), 1upT combat system, special abilities etc. simple abandoning of dates (years), and the tech tree who knows, could be more specific, some kind of leveling thing like better weapon metal and whatnot... Basically FFH.
     
  7. zonk

    zonk Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    You know - this - I could actually agree with... Put something else on the 'engine' -- perhaps put your character on the gameboard, toss out the "civilization"... and I think I could actually say "yup - I like this!".

    In fact - what you say actually reminds me of a game that I think I WOULD compare to Civ V -- the old Age of Wonders/AoWII series. That was a fine game - I'm not a huge fantasy 4Xer, but I did like that title an awful lot.

    Hex-based.

    Global leveling of virtually EVERYTHING.

    Unit upkeep.

    Relatively meaningless tile bonuses that were greatly external.

    Cities as depots.

    boiling "culture" -- mana -- to a global level which was then used to progress through an enhancement tree.

    AoW was a fine game... but it wasn't Civilization.
     
  8. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    This is it for me, 100%.

    People who are enthralled with Civ5 talk about gameplay elements....not how cool it is to be able to interact with 'x' part of human existence for the first time (religion, corporations, health, whatever) because it adds an extra layer of immersion.
     
  9. pagh80

    pagh80 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    276
    Location:
    Denmark
    I pretty much agree with everything exept global happiness. I like the way of doing it.
    And then to some extend the 1UPT system.
    Its fun managing your military units during a defence or offence. But its tedius managing your non combat units and the transport of units from one place to another.
    Some combination would be optimal.
     
  10. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Civ4 a simulation of human civilization? I was having a discussion with another poster yesterday who accused CiV of being too 'gamey' with nonesencial arbitrary rules.

    Which I pointed out is part and parcel of the Civ franchise. Lots of rules are arbitrary and only sort of make sense in the very abstract. Sid had always said gameplay before realsim (well we had a similar debate 10 years ago with the release of Civ3 and people moaning about Spearman v. Tank and how Civ3 was broken and unrealistic because it didn't have Firepower)

    Religion in Civ4 barely models what the real thing does. It's just a diplomatic crutch for human players, and provides an easy and cheap tool to manage happiness in the later parts of the game. Vassal states was equally broken in the sense that it prevented AI runaways, and kept around weakling Civs. It sapped the interesting bits out of diplomacy because a game of 8 civs on a standard map shrinks to 3-4 with 1 or 2 vassals of their own, and while the human players can cope and exploit vassals, the AI vassals simply present soft targets for the humans to invade at times of war.

    What they took out of Civ5 and similarly also wasn't in Civ3 were the SMAC elements. Essentially gameplay elements humans loved because it gave them a lot of imagined power, but ultimately is a gameplay element the AI can't cope and is designed specifically for humans.

    The city states in CiV comes very close to this. The AI can sort of manage it, but humans consistently outperform the AI and with the OP nature of maritime civs, it is going to become exploitable. But that's about it. There's nothing like that on the diplomacy end or the empire management end.
     
  11. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    This is a heavy misundertanding of what Religion and vassals do in civ IV ( and I'm not asking them in civ V , btw ;) ). Religion in civ IV is the method used by the devs for forcing the AI to make blocks and that, given that there is tech trade , is a big help for the AI, IMHO far more relevant than the crutch aspects you point ( that are not completely false , but are clearly overblown in your critic ). Vassals ... i can agree that vassals were a badly implemented feature, but I do not think that they are ther to gimp the AI ... in fact IMHO and in my experience they gimp far more the human ( it is far more common for a AI to put itself under the protection of a big AI when a human attacks it than the scenario you point ) ... but the point I wanted to talk about in here is that vassals were put in the game to prevent the drawout of useless wars ... and AI suffered far more from that in vanilla than humans ;)

    P.S I knew I had seen you somewhere ... I remember your machiavellian doctrine article from the time you wrote it :goodjob:
     
  12. TacTac

    TacTac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    If I were to reword this sentence like so - "It's just a diplomatic crutch for humans, and provides an easy and cheap tool to manage happiness in the later parts of life, I think I could argue that it proves it does model what the real thing does. :p
     
  13. Jolly Rogerer

    Jolly Rogerer Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    402
    Check out this thread:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=387544

    A lot of people agree with your take on this issue, including me. I'm also a 1970s era wargamer. I can't believe that almost 40 years after I started playing wargames, and almost 20 years since Civ 1 was released that the design quality of Civ 5 is so poor. A tactical subgame is a very old idea, and one that has been used successfully in board and computer wargames for many decades now. It's more realistic, more fun and easier on the AI. What's more with auto-calc you don't even have to play it when you don't want to, just skip the battle and get to the result.

    The scaling has always been an issue with the Civ franchise, and I've always wondered why. Of all the things that should have been "streamlined" for Civ 5, the continued contortions necessary to shoehorn elements of tactical play into a game with multi-year turns and on a map where the tiles represent at least hundreds of square miles should have been the first casualty. Instead they've doubled down on that dubious bet and made things worse.

    I also fired up Civ 4 last night and played almost all night too. :) Tried the SE again, with good success.
     
  14. moscaverde

    moscaverde Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    403
    Location:
    Brazil
    You may want to look in this thread (by Thormodr). It's about the philosophy of the Civ games:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=389538
     
  15. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    this is part of the failure of understanding between those who like V, and those who don't.

    Many of us played to have fun, not to win. So we didn't need cheap tools. If we wanted a cheap tool, we could bump it down to prince, or settler.

    Religion was fun. It gave you something to do, it gave you something to build, and it gave you a slow strategy to build allies or hurt those who would attack you and your holy city civ.

    In FFH2, religions became even more, central even.

    For the purposes of being PC, I am sure that could not happen in the civ franchise, but even so, religion is an enormous part of history.
     
  16. polypheus

    polypheus Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    372
    I know exactly what you mean.

    For people like us, its realy all a matter of playing Civ for the historical immersion. Civ4 especially BTS:RoM/AND and other mods provided that. Civ5 is more or less just a war game and a bad one at that.

    For me its also not about winning or losing but the fun experience. If I had a fairly "deep" immersive game involving religion, politics, etc etc where I can kind of spin a narrative in that make-believe world (even if these mechanics, as many say were somewhat flawed) then I enjoyed that game a lot, win or lose.

    But if the game gets too abstract or too far away from that, then I don't get what I want from Civ. And according to that poll, a good majority felt that historical immersion was extremely important. Of course not everybody cares about that. Some people see Civ as just another strategy game, like RISK or such and couldn't care less about historical immersion in the game. Nothing wrong with that but Civ was one of few games to provide that feeling and now in Civ5 its gone.
     
  17. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    polypheus:

    I know it sounds great to you, but to me it sounds a little BS-ish.

    The reason for this is the many people who profess not to like Civ V are complaining about things that shouldn't be issues if they were more proficient with the system engines.

    Production should not be a problem.

    Using most of the buildings should not be a problem.

    Happiness should not be a problem.


    In some ways, Civ V gave you less sim elements, but in other ways, it's better. For instance, it's now possible to build up multiple military centers that build super-units orders of magnitude better than normal cities could. It was not possible to do this in Civ IV because West Point was a wonder. You couldn't even go that far in Civ III.

    You can now make a truly grand stand against a flood of units crashing against your Citadel. Not really advisable in Civ IV.

    You can fight proxy-wars using the City States to weaken and even destroy a Civ that you are formally friends with. That's just cool. Well worth nixing the bad religion mechanics, IMO.
     
  18. falconne

    falconne meep

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    204
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Is that why we waltzed to victory on Immortal+ from just the second game? Even those of use who could only play BtS on Emperor?
     
  19. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    You don't need to explain this to me, I was in the beta. Religion got buffed big time through patching (but I'm not sure if that counts since so many Civ4 fanatics here refuse to give Civ5 a chance and wait for patches).

    While in development, AIs would randomly picked who they liked and din't like. If you started next to the one that didn't like you, tough luck, can't trade with them or anything.

    Religion was buffed when a few of us complained it made no sense. This now allowed players to 'manage' their relations, but it then opened up the whole 'same religion' crutch which is a cornerstone of most games played in the higher difficutly brackets to avoid getting gobbled up by the AI. Civ3 AI through sheer randomness do and did form blocks. X, Y,Z loosely at ward against A,B,C ; And it did this often enough that it wasn't 'random' as it was inevitable with a dog eat dog AI mentality that wasn't restrained by roleplaying and or religion. we didn't need 'blocs' Soren was obsessed with it though and was a poor design patch for an idea his AI couldn't quite pull off.

    I much prefer sandlot AI emergent behaviors that showup spontaneously than pre-programmed gameplay gimmicks.

    Edit: TY for reading my doctrine. There WILL be on for Civ5. I didn't do one for Civ4 because the game wasn't very well suited for it. ie: The devs read what I had to say and Liked it, but they implemented it in a very gamey way where its a clear cut diplomatic option. And that's not what machiavellian game is. Civ5 is probably the very first Civ game where 'influence' is a concept AI can understand, with it fighting over city states and such. So I'm very excited for the things to come.
     
  20. polypheus

    polypheus Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    372
    @Roxlimm

    Your response greatly confuses me. I was replying to another poster that for most of us it is the historical immersion experience that was lost in present Civ5. Civ4 even vanilla had it, at least far more than any other Civ version to that date. And with tremendous mods like RoM/AND and others, even more so.

    Civ5 is certainly not a historically immersive game as is compared to Civ4 even out of the box. I won't again go over all the reasons except to say that for those who play Civ for historical immersion experience, Civ5 mostly is a big fail. Not sure how your response above has anything to do with that point...
     

Share This Page