Civ is dead (or reminiscing on the past)

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Dis
Where does civ go from here? Maybe I lack imagination, but it may have reached it's pinnacle.

I think that's why most of us are not game designers. These are extremely creative people. My mother, a few years ago, when she heard I was playing a lot of Civ and that Sid Meier was famous and most probably rather richer than me, asked me, "Why don't you do that?" Well, Mom, its a combination of program knowledge, marketing and topic knowledge. (Yeah, I've got world history down pat, but so, evidently does Firaxis, in most cases. BTW, thanks for those early Chinese cannons in the Unification scenario, I like to think it was my idea; now if we could only get "bombards" earlier in Civ.)

It's just like people in the advertising field. Right now, on American television, we've got talking cows pimping for California cheese and a talking beaver that plays chess in some guy"s dreams, with Abraham Lincoln ("Honest Abe") looking on; all because this guy switched back to a certain mattress. WTF! Are these guys on hallocinogens??

When Civ5 comes out; and I see a lot in the current expansion I still want to play out first, despite my earlier rant in this thread, Civ5 will probably shoot off in a whole new direction. We might have hologram leaderheads with real AI, trade is certainly an area for expansion, some games specialize in it with more detail; more city detail like the new companion piece "Civ/Rome" or whatever it's called; released this month also. Go back to space, (c'mon Sid, you can do it, space marines and cities were fun in CTP1!) Or stuff so totally wild that my chemically unenhanced brain can't yet concieve of it.

Proponents of true economics from the capitalist perspective, which now dominates the civilized world, except for the weird hybrid in China, say greed motivates creativity, (actually they call greed "self-interest,") which in turn motivates market success, which motivates more greed, er "self-interest." Even if Sid and the design team are some kind of computer geek/saints, the people who market them (2K, are you listening?) will want to ride the golden calf forever and the ends will justify and promote, the means.

I wouldn't worry about Civ5. They will make it and you will come. (So, if still alive, will I. )

[Solver]

Civ has reached its pinnacle for the moment, yes. But there's PLENTY more that can be added, while being fun and in Civ style. Plenty. I have myself written some extensive idea/suggestion lists, some pretty detailed, for Firaxis, and believe me, there's a lot of stuff potentially for future games/expansions.

Have you noticed how bland many "suggest things for the next XP" or such threads are? You get 1 post with interesting ideas, and 10 saying "more leaders, more buildings, smarter AI" - things that are extremely easy to imagine.

[alms66]

Yea, but those 10 posts were all written by the same person, at least in the "next expansion" thread I've been somewhat following.

[DrSpike]

I too think it will be hard to improve on Civ4. They probably know this too which is why we are likely to see a second x-pack again, and maybe even an unprecedented third. By that time we'll have so many civs everyone will be happy.

Like some others I remain convinced that, in time (maybe Civ6? ) real improvements will be made.

[JimMac]

Originally posted by Solver
I have myself written some extensive idea/suggestion lists, some pretty detailed, for Firaxis, and believe me, there's a lot of stuff potentially for future games/expansions.

Well, lets hope Firaxis act on some of your suggestions for the next expansion. As a builder-type player with no interest in scenarios, I found Warlords to be ineffectual.

(I know it was a coincidence, but my 1st game with Warlords installed turned out to be my least warlike game of CiV ever! My only non-barbarian battle started when the Vickings attacked me when the turn counter showed there were 5 turns left of the game. The best evidence that Warlords was installed were the new faces...Not enough. (My settings, which I always play,-Noble,Epic,Shuffle maps-which turned out to be islands))

[Generaldoktor]

It's always funny when I play defender of Civ4, I just got done ranting about the performance again on another thread. But seriously, you really should give "Warlords'" scenarios a try. I had a blast with Chinese Unification, which did remind me some of the Samurai Scenario in Civ3 Conquests, but has its own flavor. From what I'm hearing, the Mongols and Vikings scenarios, (played from their historical perspective,) are also just good clean fun, though I do like the historical influences too.

Lastly, the two "regular" games of Warlords I am playing simultaneously, (not really, I alternate maps on different days,) feature plentiful conflict. As always, you need to tweak the circumstances a little bit. Play with "Aggressive AI" on. I like to turn on "Raging Barbs" also to get one more combative "player" early on. If you like large maps, stock it with a lot of Civs, space demands will provoke them to war and you can declare on them if they spam settlers into your selected rosy spots. Or play on a smaller map. Unless you like naval, set seas to low; there's more potential for friction with land units bumping around each other. But one of my games is a huge "Ice Age" map with "high" seas, (I was playing Vikings and wanted to make sure there was some water.) This broke down into islands, with large ice caps top and bottom, but some nicely varied terrain. (Though I still have some issues with C4 terrain selection parameters, I had one isolated patch of jungle near my capital and I was near the South Pole!) Point being, even with the islands, there's been a lot of war, betwen me and AI and between various AI. Tweak, tweak.

[Jeje2]

Minor vassals’

Following is based on basic game (very little played so far) and some general info available of Warlords. (It is possible this idea is in Warlords already, but…)


Problem: Too many barbarians (Even without “Raging barbarians”). As barbarians don’t have any relationship they just attack until killed. It isn’t fun to just build protective units against barbarians.


Solution: Minor “city”-states, which can become even minor vassals.

This would somewhat define what has happened historically (early middle age in Europe). Also this way the “barbarians” could still be aggressive, but they could also be dealt with in other forms than just brute force. (some simple locig is easy to generate)

First you could have them around you peacefully, even try to get them as vassals against another neighbor etc.

Minor vassals would be available only with certain ruling – when you switch out of it depending on some “like” factor the minor vassals could either integrate as part of your empire or break the union by declaring independency => war (á American civil war)

Of course there would be some restrictions to these minor states (no wonder building, etc)



Hope you got my idea – opinions?
(OK, maybe warlords with max number of states on a small map will generate something similar)

[Generaldoktor]

Yeah, vassals in "Warlords" work largely as you describe. If you are talking about using them as buffers for barbs, any civ can potentially do this, depending on your initial placement. Some picky guys will reload the game until they get a placement they like, (in single-player only, as far as I know.)

Barbs have been in Civ a long time, but I can't help thinking they were put in to give some aspect of "shoot-em-up" games, along with all the sophistication of reacting with the more sentient AI "players." You are correct; when you set up Civ4 with "Raging Barbs," you are getting a constant stream of them in the early game. (They "spawn" randomly in areas under "fog of war," though in Civ4 they can and do sometimes establish cities; I think they then produce themselves "normally" there also. Settlement by all the AI and you eventually eliminates the spawning area, usually about the Early Modern period.)

I have tried having barbs present in Civ4, even without "raging" and you still get a pretty good stream of them and they are nihilistically evil about tearing up your improvements if you ignore them, even if they don't go for your units and cities.

A game with "Raging Barbarians," on a map such as "Highlands" that gives them plenty of secret places to spawn early, does have a lot of the feel of "Space Invaders" and other, early "shoot-em-up" games, but then you get all the Civ features too; best of both worlds, right? Well, I can see how you might not like it. There is an option, under "Custom Game, " to turn barbs totally off, if you want. But, at any rate, that's why I think they were originally put in. It is an additional distraction-as-challenge, much like some of the creatures and obstacles in a game like "Super Mario." (I can tell I'm dating myself, with these other game references, as to age. )

[Dis]

and the fact that historically, barbarians were a major challenge to some civilizations. . Just not right to leave them out. And really, it would be no challenge for the human player.

Though it does give me an idea for my next game. I have never played a game with barbs turned off. Yes it's less challenge for the human player, but barbs do harass the ai a decent bit. I'm curious how the ai will react. Perhaps they will have more units to attack the player with.

[Shogun Gunner]

Perplexing AI behavior is to see that they lose a city to the barbs and let the city remain in barbarian hands for hundreds of years.

I like having the barbarians...my troops need to practice somewhere

[Generaldoktor]

Barbs can be a good "boot camp" for troops. There is a cap, how many XP you can get that way, put on by the designers; I forget how much, but its about three promotions worth. The Barb cities are frequently well-placed and can be kept for oneself as there is a perplexing AI behavior where they'll leave them alone for centuries, though they are more aggressive since "Warlords." I think and will "collect" the city or raze it once they reach a certain strength level. The cities also provide an easy source for pillage income and practicing siege warfare before a major war occurs.

Dis: There were some howls on some threads right after the game came out that the barbs ignore AI and beeline for the live player. I don't believe this, I played some games, mostly notably on the aforementioned Raging Barbs/Highlands, where some AI were actually wiped out in "early rush" by the barbs! There were others, again most notably on Huge Highlands maps, where I would go hundreds of years undetected by some percentage of the AI, due to massive barb incurusions disrupting the usual AI "strategies" of settler spam and scout shadowing. When I would find them, their (AI) growth was heavily stunted.

I like the effect, (mostly.) I think some of the programmed "coping" mechanisms by the AI are more than a little annoying, rather than challenging, for a "Builder" type game like I frequently like to play. (I like to say I'm holding out for "real" AI, in about 10 years, say Civ 8? ) I'm smarter than AI at holding off the "Raging Barbs," thus progress faster, though sometimes it does often fatally delay some strategies depending on The Oracle or the Pyramids, because any island, seacoast AI or others properly buffered, (it is possible to be "buffered" as the human player too; and that's an easy ride, ) will continue to beeline for certain techs, Wonders and goals. At Noble and above, at least, that can hobble you also.

[Shogun Gunner]

Interesting post, yes I have shielded and been shielded by AI players. It's the luck of the draw of the geography.

The highest you can go with experience from barb units is 10/17

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, the highest you can go is 10/13

[Shogun Gunner]

is this a different setting or something? My promotions never have this fraction....

[Kuciwalker]

Try playing as Cyrus or Hannibal or Churchill