Beyond the Sword: A Betrayal of Soren's Vision?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Solver
Granted, BtS will probably appeal more to builders than to warmongers, but I believe the quality of an expansion doesn't depend on playstyle as much as you imply.

Ideally, the best XP possible should appeal to all playstyles, right?
From what we've seen of BtS, it seems to have a little something for everyone.

[Solver]

True, BtS does have new units, for example, which should be fun for warmongers... but any expansion will have, and must have, a focus. Therefore, any expansion to any game will inevitably appeal more to players with a certain playstyle.

[Verrucosus]

monkspider's comments are thoughtful and I share at least some of his concerns. It will take at least several games to know how the announced features work in practice and how they affect game balance as a whole, but that shouldn't stop us from speculating about it. After all, anticipating a game is already part of enjoying it.

Generally, I'm very cautious about expansions. Because an expansion is not expected to change the core design it either adds more of the same (units, wonders etc.) or it introduces new features that are not an integrated part of the original design. "More of the same" is not really needed for a game as replayable as Civilization and "tacked-on" features always risk upsetting the delicate balance of the original design. Warlords took a very conservative approach in that respect. Vassal States and Warlords didn't turn Civ4 into a much better game than it already was, but they didn't wreck the game's balance either. Beyond the Sword is a more ambitious and therefore inevitably riskier move, but one which I think should be applauded most of all because of its stated objective to make the late game more interesting.

Late game tedium is a problem with almost all empire-building games and unfortunately it's one that gets bigger and bigger as players improve their skills in the early game. With the notable and not entirely successful exception of Colonization, there have been no visible efforts to tackle this specific problem in any of the various Civ games. Now, I have no idea whether the mix of new and expanded features (Apostolic Palace, Corporations, Random Events, Space Race, Espionage) will do the trick to revitalise the second half of the game, but I like it that such an effort is made to address the problem. With all appropriate caution, Solver's comments so far can be taken as a clear indication that they haven't failed spectacularly and even it's just a step towards a more interesting late game, it's one that can be built on in the future.

On the whole, I must say that I'm rather optimistic about the game and that my real concern at this point is to find enough time to thorougly play it.

Verrucosus

P.S.:
The original press release said: "... Expanded Epic Game: Firaxis Games has delivered a massive increase in new units, buildings, and technologies to the epic game with a tremendous amount of effort focused on the late game. ..."
Solver's Fact Sheet states: "Random events, corporations and revamped espionage are among the epic game features."
Does this mean that Random events and Corporations appear only in the epic game or do I read too much into this?

[Solver]

It means that they're epic game features. Supply wagons, for example, are not - they're a scenario feature, as is space colonization.

[Verrucosus]

Thank you for responding so quickly.

Just to make sure: When you are talking about the "epic game", do you use that term to distinguish the standard 4000 BC game from scenarios or to describe the game speed "epic" (as distinct from normal, quick and marathon)?

[Solver]

The "epic game" means the non-scenario, standard game. I'm not a big fan of the term, but it has been used by Firaxis since at least Civ3, so I'm also using it.

[Thedrin]

Post deleted.

[Solver]

That was quick.

[Jaybe]

"The epic game" is non-scenarios. "Playing epic," "playing at epic", etc. is the same as "epic speed."

[Verrucosus]

Thank you, everyone. I'm afraid I wasn't as familiar with the terminology.

[Willem]

Originally posted by joncha
I don't think he mentioned earlier spies anywhere in the passage you quoted.

Good point. I thought he was refering to spies appearing earlier the way they will in BtS.

[MosesPresley]

The Apostolic Palace doesn't look like a good idea from a gaming pov. From what I have read, it will allow captured cities to be returned to the "rightful owner". That would be aggravating.

[Thedrin]

That's a feature I've wanted in the game for a while. I'm only dissapointed that such diplomatic agreements will probably only occur between civs with the same state religion.

[ben04]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
The Apostolic Palace doesn't look like a good idea from a gaming pov. From what I have read, it will allow captured cities to be returned to the "rightful owner". That would be aggravating.

Culture swapping isn't bad, so why does this have to be bad?

[Ijuin]

On budgeting: I would like to see the ability to adjust the sliders in increments smaller than ten percent. Let's have players able to devote fifteen percent to culture and forty-five percent to research, for example.

On the space race: I liked the Civ 2 version of the starship, where you had to balance cost/time of construction, travel time, and score bonus. You could build a maxed-out ship at high expense for the score bonus, or you could build a minimum, cheap ship in the hopes of launching first, or you could build one with maximum engines and minimum modules to minimize travel time (and possibly overtake a rival who had launched first).