Will you be dumb enough to buy Beyond The Sword?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Slavery is evil

Civ should not be promoting such evil behavior

Correct, lets instead promote a peaceful volley exchanges of Thermo nuclear weapons instead, afterall, nothing says I love and respect you like a good old fashioned backyard barbecue

[EyesOfNight]

Interestingly, in the six pages of this thread, I've not seen any sign of those points. I've seen some general whines that Civ 4 is not Civ 2, and some additional wailing and gnashing of teeth that the designers have opted to shut down the more obvious game imbalances, making the more simplistic "strategies"* like rushing less bothersome.

I got to the part about you saying rushing is simplistic and bothersome and then I just stopped reading. I then reminded myself that you are an SP only player and therefore have no idea how to play on a high level and never have. While I'm sure you wow the SP players, everything you write is what the typical newbie to MP writes. I would suggest you go back to the Civ4 general forum since even a beginning MP player would see how ridiculous that statement was.

Also, I have never said I wanted the game to be Civ 2. If I wanted that I'd still be playing Civ 2 and I'm not. In fact, I have put forth ideas on how to balance the game better so it is not 100% unit production and how to free up players so they can get leads. The game is simply too simplistic in its current form and does not allow for outside the box play. Maybe in SP you can do all kinds of neat stuff vs the horendous AI that always gets poorly designed for civ games, but in MP there is very little that is allowed. So again, I strongly recommend you go back to Civ4 General and wow the newbies with your overblown and longwinded posts about strategy that would never work in MP and most MP players would find very simple.

[Velociryx]

Then please share....enlighten us here, in this thread. Tell us what you think is broke. And tell us why rushing is NOT simplistic.




-=Vel=-

[EyesOfNight]

I've written about this for like 2 years. Here's why I'm not going to bother:

1. No one is listening, and I am under no illusion that they ever will.

2. SP>MP in terms of sales and Firaxis has never and will never care about MP.

3. Firaxis has made it very clear they don't intend to listen to ther play testers. This hasn't changed since Ming play tested Civ3.

4. I have heard from several play testers already how much BTS sucks and how it's just the same old same old. Also, several of them have confirmed what I already thought and that is that the designers they have now are completely incompetent.

So, you are free to go dig up the numerous topics and posts I have made. I don't really see where writing long winded posts about the multitude of things I feel need to be fixed, and how to fix them, is going to accomplish anything.

[Velociryx]

I'm listening.

Granted, I don't work for Firaxis, and I'm not a modder, but I am interested in what you have to say.

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Vel, prepared to listen to a bunch of "my strategies aren't leet anymore!"

[EyesOfNight]

The basic problem with Civ4 is that it's too simple. In an attempt to combine RTS elements in Civ4, while also simplifying the interface, they took out everything that made the game challenging and added depth. The route they are going is not necessarily bad. I didn't particularly find managing 100 cities and not building any buildings or anything necessarily all that fun. However, if you are dealing with a smaller number of cities you need to add in aspects that add challenge and depth. I will give a few bits on what I would do to fix the game.

How to organize this? I guess I'll start with combat.

A. For one thing, stacks would be tiered (really, everything should be tiered in this game). What do I mean by this? In other words, you can't just build a stack of infinite size. You would start out with the ability to build a stack of 3 units. If you want to truly create a game of combined arms, you need to create a reason for this. A stack of 1 archer, 1 axeman, and 1 horseman might be called a "balanced stack" and gives a +10% attack vs all units in addition to the current bonuses each individual unit has. Lets say we create a stack of 3 axemen we would call an "anti-infantry" stack that would then give an additional 20% attack vs infantry in addition to the current 50% they already get. In other words, you can't just mindlessly create stacks and send them from point A to point B. You have to strategically create stacks. Since you can't create a stack of more than 3 units in the beginning, no more than 3 military units may occupy 1 square. This means you'll have to spread out your units more and actually use some tactics when approaching someone. In addition, certain advances and buildings allow you to build bigger stacks with better bonuses. Barracks add +1 to stack sizes. Great generals have the added ability to double the size of a stack when choosing the extra experience option. The military academy adds an additional +1 to stack sizes and opens up more bonuses. Lots of things you can do with that and it ADDS to the game.

B. Units shouldn't be supported by gold. Instead, you should take a page out of Age of Empires and support them by population. For example, each city size is capable of supporting 2 units. In other words, slavery has been effectively nerfed in one fell swoop. Buildings like houses would increase total unit support out of 1 city by +2. Again, tier this so you can get advances and build more buildings that will increase the amount of units supported.

C. Buildings should fuel units. One example that would boost the spiritual trait, and buildings in general, is to add the Religious Fervor tech. This tech gives units built out of cities with temples the Medic upgrade. This idea can be applied to all buildings thus making buildings more important.

The main idea is to create a balance between military and economy. Economy should fuel military. You shouldn't be able to field an enormous military with 2 size 4 cities and no improvements. This will create the added layer of depth the game so desperately needs.

I probably am not doing justice to these ideas by explaining them so shortly, and what I see is so massive I can't explain everything in a post. Everything is interconnected and I would need to create a large outline that encompasses all aspects of the game right down to every single detail. Which I'm simply not going to do since none of this will be taken seriously or implemented anyway.

My overall basic gripe with this game is that it has become so simplified that there is nothing you can do to differentiate players. YOu can't even begin to understand this because you have never played MP. There simply is not enough depth to the combat system and so it becomes nothing more than moving stack A to point B without much thought process. The game is absolutely stifiling when it comes to strategy in MP. NOTHING is allowed beyond the normal play. The tech system has ****ed everything up beyond all recognition because of the way it hampers players further ahead and makes techs cheaper for players behind. The game actively seeks to keep players on one level, and that is why half the community quit the game in late 2005/early 2006. I'm not the only one saying these things, I'm just the only one left *****ing about it because I didn't move on to other games.

[MJW]

It does not matter what the game makers intended it matters how the game really works. There is no partial credit in MP. 10% off is the same as 100% off in MP.

Oh, and the reason why (I think) Blake made a better AI then Firaxis is because he's smatter then the people who made the AI. Sadly, he's failed to teach the AI about how to have a plan so Bigger is still Better. But it's a step in the right direction.

[Velociryx]

Well, I think then, based on your comments so far, I am about to surprise you.

I agree with the general sentiment you posted. I think that combat in Civ is (and has been, historically) among the weakest elements in the whole game.

In fact, it is the combat model in particular that has led me to post in numerous places that Civ really isn't a wargame at all, lacking in some of the most basic fundamentals that make war games, well....WAR games.

Civ's got checkers beat hands down in the strategy department, but a war game? Hardly.

Where you and I begin to differ on what needs to change is that, I view your posts as a single step in the right direction.

See...at the end of the day, you're still talking about pretty much mindlessly moving your stacks around...you're just introducing a bit of MM on the front end...now, you've got to think about stack composition, and of course, the MM comes from the fact that you'll have more stacks. So we couple this with the idea of the promotion system (which you didn't say you wanted to nix), and we have two "layers" of thought behind troops, but again, at the end of the day, you're still just shuffling stacks around. There's still no sense of command and control, no supply lines, no realistic combat model...no war game.

As to my "not possibly being able to understand," here, I think you make a common mistake.

The fact that I don't play much Civ MP does not mean I don't play any. It also does not mean that I don't play MP in other games (nor that the years of experience playing really deep war games isn't directly applicable...it simply means that, for me, the Civ MP experience leaves me cold. I don't enjoy it. As a purestrain war game, it's a very shallow pool, and that's not a bad thing, because again, I don't view Civ as a war game at all...it's not something that the franchise has ever done too well. I enjoy the game very much, but NOT for its strategic depth as a war game.

In any case, I agree with you.

The things you posted above would be a step in the right direction.

-=Vel=-

[Grandpa Troll]

I'll buy it, I am not on the same level as EON, of course, apparently not many are

I will buy it because it seems to be a most excellent game, not because I am dumb enough but because I have the funds to invest in my favorite series of games

[EyesOfNight]

You underestimate checkers if you feel CIv is more complex. If you want, I can kick your ass in it so you can get a brief glimpse of the depth of checkers.

[Velociryx]

Better be careful....we're verging on having a civil conversation, you and I...it could lead to all manner of talk!

-=Vel=-

[EyesOfNight]

What site do you want to play me in checkers on? Also, discussing civ is pointless as they aren't going to listen to either one of us.

[Slade Wilson]

Civ is hugely more complex than checkers, both in sheer mathiness as well as in the this-versus-that descisions to make. But that complexity makes civ very unbalanced compared to checkers and prone to 100% win strategies. Obviously checkers will out last civ as a game but not because its more complex than civ.

[EyesOfNight]

Checkers is far more complex and difficult than civilization could ever be. Civilization, in its present form, is a game made for 5 year olds. If you find Civ4 difficult you more than likely find making breakfast in the morning difficult as well.