Civ V Options

[wodan11]

Oh, thanks. I would say yes, a tile is a tile regardless of shape.

[Ming]

It would be nice if they had a tournament option or ladder option for MP. A system that provided balanced maps and maybe even rule changes more oriented to tournament MP play... and a system that automatically provided the results in a consistent matter to a server or official site that keeps track of the data.

[MikeH]

You mean like a "Friends League" type system rather than a global ladder?

[Ming]

I'm not sure what I mean right now. But what I do want are options that gear themselves toward the MP crowd.

[CanuckSoldier]

It would be nice if they had a tournament option or ladder option for MP. A system that provided balanced maps and maybe even rule changes more oriented to tournament MP play... and a system that automatically provided the results in a consistent matter to a server or official site that keeps track of the data.

Well all they have stated in the first press release was that you can "compare scores" with your friends. Which is pretty vague and likely says they haven't decided what they want to do in terms of ingame ranking etc.

I know from my league perspective, is that we will fill in what ever functions that Firaxis doesn't give us. We have been working on a Game Monitor Mod for over a year now for BTS, that automatically reports the games inprogress status, and we have a beta mod in progress that would also directly report games to the league. As well as it has an observer mode, something missing from civ4.

Worse case is I hope that Civ5 is as easily moddable as Civ4 and we can port this mod without to much hassle. And as well I'm hoping that MP mods in Civ5 can be loaded like maps in the staging room, not like the Civ4 mods that require a complicated and often error prone system to load. This has prevented MP mods from being the huge success they were in Civ3.

CS

[MasterDave]

Good game options make for a more replayable game in the long run. Civ 4 and the expansions that came later are a great example with all the different map types and custom options you could choose from.

For multiplayer, I think the best solution is to make the actual leader traits a little more balanced with eachother and maybe a little less overpowered/sucky than Civ 4. Make them powerful enough where it gives each civ a unique feel and strategy but make more of an effort not to make some combinations so much stronger than others. For example, the Incas are just way overpowered (and became even more so with BTS) while being stuck with the Japanese in multiplayer was a fate worse than death. If they could somewhat close the gap between the best and worst combinations of leader traits, buildings, starting techs, etc while still making them interesting and distinct enough to make playing each civ feel unique, that would help alleviate the problem.

If the Civ and Leader traits proves too difficult to balance, then being able to exclude the more hopeless civs from random is a good alternative for MP balance (or SP if you want to do less restarting). Mods are not really the answer IMO for multiplayer because it is a pain getting a mod widely distributed.

[CanuckSoldier]

Mods aren't that hard to get widely adopted, the Civplayers Civ3 league has probably about a dozen very popular mods that are used every day, everything from Future to Unique Units Mod, to the MPT, Quickciv, etc etc, it's all in how convient they are to use. In civ3 they are very easy to use, but in Civ4 mods are a pain to use in MP.

CS

[Japher]

One thing I liked in Civ IV is that you get the choice of how much you want to micromanage your cities, I would like to see this MM choice taken to other aspects of the game other than city management. Two off the top of my head:

1. Turn Length. I think it would be neat, or at least nice, if when you entered "war" times you could reduce the turn duration. Thus, moving a spearman 2 road squares wouldn't take 5+ years and you could manage unit training and bombardments more directly. I am sure you could do more, but this would mostly be nice to keep the game play close(r) to reality.

2. Unit Development. I wouldn't mind a point based unit builder option ala Masters of Orion or some such. This would allow you to develop your units based off of home location/starts instead of being at the whim of getting the right UU and the right start. In all reality the best mountaineers are in mountainous regions and I doubt my swamp based civ would really think camel archers would be a great idea.

Thoughts?

[Norselord]

1. Turn Length. I think it would be neat, or at least nice, if when you entered "war" times you could reduce the turn duration. Thus, moving a spearman 2 road squares wouldn't take 5+ years and you could manage unit training and bombardments more directly. I am sure you could do more, but this would mostly be nice to keep the game play close(r) to reality.

Thoughts?

That is an unworkable idea for multiplayer.

Think about it. Just because player A is at war with player B players C,D,E, and F have to wait longer to build their buildings?

[Felch]

As long as it's an option, I think Japher's first suggestion is interesting. Some sort of fractional term option, so that people at war can actually use their units before they become obsolete. Marathon is like that now, but it drags during peacetime.

You're absolutely right that it wouldn't work during multiplayer. It would also be weird working it out with AI vs. AI wars.

[Boris Godunov]

I'd rather they did away with counting turns by years entirely (or at least we should have the option to do so). I don't like looking at the game year and having to compare my progress in the game to it--it takes me out of the experience a little. I think a simple numerical turn counter would be best.

[CanuckSoldier]

That is an unworkable idea for multiplayer.

Think about it. Just because player A is at war with player B players C,D,E, and F have to wait longer to build their buildings?

Not entirely, the MP community already has a mod that lets us change the timer in game. But it is upto the host to decide, generally we have a longer timer at the start so we can micromanage our first few cities to give us a good start, and then speed up the timer threw the mid game, and then slow it down slightly as we arrive at the warfare period enough so everyone can move there units and re-inforce cities.

But like anything else this is one thing that should be an option and available to the host to change as required.

CS

[Hauldren Collider]

I'd like to be able to build canals, as opposed to using the fort-on-isthmus exploit.