ICS is back with a vengeance

[binTravkin]

Instead of artificial constraints on number of cities, perhaps rebalancing to give incentive for larger cities would be the way to go.

And again we return to Civ4, since the city maintenance system there was encouraging making big, rich cities to offset costs.

[MxM]

And again we return to Civ4, since the city maintenance system there was encouraging making big, rich cities to offset costs.

I think you missing the point. City increasing the maintenance limits very rigidly the number of cities that you can have. It makes the game-play more dumb - you can easily see how many cities your should have. I would rather you CAN make huge empires if you chose to, but it simply should not be optimal for most of the cases, yet still playable and even winnable on easier levels of difficulties, below prince.

[MxM]

That is correct and also historically correct, so I see no problem there.

The problem is that many people do enjoy having colonies and having them valuable addition. This is an example where gameplay > realism.

[binTravkin]

It makes the game-play more dumb - you can easily see how many cities your should have.

No it doesn't. To discuss this further I suggest you to do more heavy-duty Civ4 practice.

The problem is that many people do enjoy having colonies and having them valuable addition. This is an example where gameplay > realism.

And the solution falls exactly in the same spot where the answer to previous quote - create incentives to make certain city spots very attractive.
That would be both realistic, historical and fun, because you would actually have a need to plan and consider each city, which, coincidentally is exactly what you do if you want to get big in Civ4.

Conclusion:
I stand by my point that certain usual civ "problems" were solved in Civ4 in a better way than they are in Civ5.

And this is no good as most of the "solutions" to the same problems in Civ5 are very deeply rooted in the game and will not be "fixed", ever.

What Firaxis has done here is tried to simplify the game.
Simplifying is not a bad thing as such, some companies make huge money by making things simpler, however, when you attempt simplifying there are some notable mistakes you can make, two of which I can see here - unnecessary dumbing down and "fixing" what's not broken.
I can easily perceive a "simplified" civ4, that is easier to learn, yet still is balanced and still offers rewards for people who want to dig deep.
As it stands now, Civ5 is hardly easier to learn, awfully unbalanced and the rewards it offers to diggers are so huge there is no challenge for them and challenge is what they seek, I am myself a digger/bean counter and I know it.

[Ming]

I question the whole... let's dumb it down to attract a larger audience strategy.

First, there is the loyal hard core base that will buy the game pretty much no matter what. It doesn't matter what they produce, these people will buy based on past Civ Experiences.

Second, there is a hard core group who have been addicted in the past, but will read forums and will only buy the game if they think it's worth it... and as can be seen here, there is a group of people that won't buy the game (yet) because they hear it's dumbed down and has problems or doesn't play like they expected it to. So far, this audience has been turned off by the comments/demo and have not bought.

Third, the casual game player who if they have bought civ games or not in the past, will buy based on past experience, and maybe read the reviews. Dumbed down or not, they will probably base their decision more on whether they liked the last game they owned and on the hype/reviews. They may play the demo, but they probably don't have the hard core background to raise many of the thoughts and issues being mentioned by the true civ addicts. They will buy the game if they like turn based strategy games and like what they remember. A dumbed down game really doesn't add many sales to this group... in reality, it may hurt this group if they are people like hard turn based strategy games.

The last group is the "big" never played audience... The group that they seem to be targeting, the new player. They can see gold in them hills if they can attract audiences like World of Warcraft or Call of Duty or Hallo or some other first person shooter or role playing game. But that's the problem... Civ isn't a first person shooter game, and it's not really a role playing game. It's simply a turn based strategy game. Many people just don't play them. There is only SO BIG of an audience for this type of game. And the fact that it doesn't really direct itself for MP (no matter what anybody claims, Civ is more an SP game than MP game) makes it even less attractive to many people.

They keep trying to appeal to a big audience, but is there really that much bigger of an audience they can appeal to.
Sure, Civ sells well, but it doesn't sell like many of the more popular non turn based strategy games. It NEVER WILL!
Civ was on the top ten list the first week on the market, and then it fell off. No real surprise.

The strength of Civ is a loyal repeat buyer, willing to buy expansion sets and pay premium dollar for additional content, whether it was a shiney box, or some extra civ. The strength of Civ lately has not been a rush of new samplers.

So I think they are continue making a mistake by trying to dumb down the game. They tried that with Civ Rev, and see how well that worked

The hard core Civ WANTS a complicated game with tons of different options, and lots of facts to base decisions on. They don't want a simpler game. It's that simple.

Maybe they will figure this out and focus their efforts on the best market of all... the true hard cores, not the casual buyer who will probably not buy the game anyway. The casual buyer will probably not keep coming back for multiple expansion packs... the hard cores will if they make it worth it.

I've been in marketing for a long time, and the first rule is "know your target audience/customer"
And the second rule is, don't waste your time, effort and money targeting people who aren't your target audience.

[notyoueither]

I question the whole dumbed down meme... period.

The game is very complex in the way techs/wonders, social policies, civ traits, and the map create radically different conditions in different combinations.

There are some very powerful strategies, but they can be addressed in balancing if they need to be addressed.

Even the topic of ICS is not as simple as reading this thread would have some believe. Different leaders on different maps will benefit from planning and building all their smaller 'camps' in different ways. It is not the ICS of Civ or Civ II. I think the idea needs a different name, and to be discussed without reference to past models.

[Zoetstofzoetje]

I question the whole dumbed down meme... period.

The designers have stated in various interviews that they wished to make the game accessible to new people, who would not like the complexity of Civ4BTS, yet wanted to kick it up a notch from the simplicity of Civ Rev.

It doesn't get any more clear than that, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, this does not mean that players will not find ways to make something simple complex again.

[Hermann the Lombard]

Of course, this does not mean that players will not find ways to make something simple complex again.

Especially so if the game is better when it's more balanced (and likely more complex). Ming's point is that the designers' intent was misguided and is alienating their existing fan base without attracting the new blood they want.

[notyoueither]

Simpler does not mean dumber.

[Ming]

True enough... but it can be both simpler and dumber

[MxM]

No it doesn't. To discuss this further I suggest you to do more heavy-duty Civ4 practice.

I am bored with Civ IV - I played alot. And one of the problem with civ IV is that in every game the size of my empire was more or less the same. If it is bigger or smaller I lose. That's not very interesting, at least not for me.

And the solution falls exactly in the same spot where the answer to previous quote - create incentives to make certain city spots very attractive.

I completely support this. I only object to geometrical cost of the cities in terms of happiness or gold. I do think there are alternative ways to resolve the issue. I already mentioned several of them. One more, for example, make settler more expensive. (like 2-4 times), but give free settler each time you enter gold age. And yes, city should not grow when settler is build.

I stand by my point that certain usual civ "problems" were solved in Civ4 in a better way than they are in Civ5.

Ehm... It is not that it is solved better in Civ4. It is just it is not solved in civ 5. And I am all for solving it, and I do want to solve it differently, part of it simply because if I wanted civ 4 I would play civ 4, and part of it is that I think that better, more interesting solutions are possible.

And this is no good as most of the "solutions" to the same problems in Civ5 are very deeply rooted in the game and will not be "fixed", ever.

Which ones? Definitely not DICS (Delayed ICS). DICS can be easily fixed in many ways.