On-Topic Off-Topic Forum Thread: Rate'em! Civ's I-V

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Krill - thanks for that link... was an interesting read, while coming out to say that they did well with Civ V, he is pretty much changing it all in a different direction for his next project. Pretty neat, I am even interested in this next game .

And Snoopy - "objectively" Civ V is rubbish, it has enough beef for newbies, and those are the ones who had "fun", but the millions of former Civ series fans were either dissapoined or could not even be bothered to check it out, just look at the responses in this thread. This is as objective as it can be, so basically while they did not ruin the whole game completely ala MOO3, they did destroy any longer term potential of this iteration.

Basically Civ III and Civ V had the same issue - after a while - pointless, but comparing to Civ V for me Civ III had a lot more time to get to the point of "whatever", can't be botherered. With Civ V's obvious flaws (as in booooring pace, unit movement etc... ) it gets old very sooon... while for Civ III it took a lot longer to get to the bottom. Last iteration of Civ IV, which is BTS + Mods, including AI ones has so much room to play, that I am still playing and finding new interesting developments, which is the potential of Civ... Civ II is the only one which had similar "legs", such games are few and far in between, so it hurts a lot more when a proven concept is ruined for no particular reason at all...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I feel the same way about suits, they should fit perfectly right off the rack, no tailoring necessary.

Typically I wear suits to make my wife happy on the given date night occasion or the like. Thus the primary reasons is tailoring to please her eye. Doubtful she has any feeling one way or the other on the PC games I choose to play ('cept for the amount of 'me time' it entails).

[Supr49er]

IV, V, II, I, III
Bring back Armies into V for some limited stacking ability.

[kittenOFchaos]

I liked Civ IV BTS the best due to the multiplayer scene that I dabbled with

Next is the CivII Collectors Edition, particularly for the scenarios - Red Front by Captain Nemo and the Lord of the Rings scenario by Harlan Thompson that I had modded the hell out of were awesome. Red Front takes me back...24 hours of playing that then going for the Lyke Wake Walk (start at 11pm and walk 40 miles)

Civ I next, simply as it was the game that got me hooked and had lots of cute features.

Next comes CiV as nothing is as abominable as Civ III...perhaps I say that as a very jaded beta-tester of Civ III Play the World (they couldn't even do Pearl Harbour right!). Both CiV and CivIII deserve to come last as they both were a step backwards in key areas. CiV forgot the lessons that should have been learnt about supporting MP and has dismal AI and diplomacy and had no soul and CivIII forgot the modding despite the modding community doing so much with CivII. At least CivIII managed some of the best succession games ever. Yup, changed my mind, CiV comes last

[Krill]

Nothing in that post - which I'd read around the same time as this thread - says Jon thinks 1UPT was a bad idea. It says he thinks he didn't do a very good job of implementing it; and he thinks it would be hard to implement well. That's very, very different from saying it's a bad idea, or a mistake.

You need to improve your reading comprehension. Trip constantly lists reasons why 1UPT doesn't work in civilization, from the fact that AIs cannot handle it, that maps are not designed with it in mind, to the idea that it isn't fun.

Quite honestly, even if I agreed it didn't work, I don't think it was a mistake to try it.

I make no comment on what is worth looking at during game development.

Civ's tactics was always its weak point;

Please show me where the tactics in CIV are weak, where there are cookie cutter, one right decisions. Show me. For every problem with stack combat (in SP) there is an equivalent (or worse) problem with 1UPT. In MP it isn't even close. RB has over 50 documented games at various skill levels that show how stack combat tactics are complex.

Krill, you can't judge the game objectively. It's not something you can judge that way.

Reading Comprehension again. I mentioned tactics, and nothing else. One game mechanic is something that can be viewed objectively, and the effects it has on the rest of the game can be analysed. For instance, in CIV, what is known is that to counter an SoD all that is needed are siege units and flanking (read: Mounted) units, plus random units to sit in the city you need to defend. Hammerwise the defender comes out ahead in a trade because the defender always gets to attack first, so is able to use collateral damage first to lower the strength of the defending units, and then HA attack, getting at least 50% odds or better, and every victory or retreat damages the siege units that the attacker brought along. This is accepted when one player attacks into a different players culture. This is why the assertion that the SoD exists über alles gets tiring very quickly.

Might as well try to judge a Picasso objectively. It's art; it either is fun or it isn't. You can judge how many people enjoy it, or how you personally enjoy it; but overall it must be primarily subjective.

Red herring.

[snoopy369]

IV, V, II, I, III
Bring back Armies into V for some limited stacking ability.

This (or something in that general direction). I think the big problem with 1UPT was not being able to cogently deal with the dual demands of players wanting to build stuff all the time [ie, not have lots of 'waiting' turns] and not wanting to have very many units on the map. Working out some way to allow you to build small units and then combine them for better ones was certainly one option, and one I think deserves serious consideration. Garrisoning in a city unlimited amounts of units also is probably reasonable - I think the defense/offense balance could've been maintained while allowing defenders to occupy cities.

One other interesting solution to me is taken from Rhye's. Instead of playing every single turn, how about skipping eras. Or not necessarily skipping, but fastforwarding - have a screen that shows you graphs and how your civ is doing while simming, allowing you to stop when you see an issue, or a tech is discovered, or whatever. Then the periods you actually do play can be a lot more involved. It's largely how I play baseball/football sims - sim 80% of the season, just play the compelling matchups or when my team needs my intervention.

But I digress.

[snoopy369]

Krill, how can you say a player's enjoyment of a game's tactical system can be measured objectively? I enjoy it. I like playing with 1UPT because of the way the unit formations work and how you can organize your troops. Civ4 was okay, but just not as interesting in this dimension. I came into Civ5 thinking I'd hate 1UPT, because I didn't want the focus on military; but that was the element I really enjoyed. I wasn't exactly a tactical genius in Civ4 as you well remember, but neither am I in Civ5; perhaps Civ4 is "better" from a tactical genius standpoint. I don't know, and don't care; I am me, not you, and I like it better. It has absolutely nothing to do with cookie cutter or anything else for me - I am not and never have been a min-maxer. I don't play Civ to win, I play to have fun. Civ5 tactics are fun for me. Civ4 tactics were not as fun.

You can 'objectively' compare tactical systems through whatever system you want to 'objectively' compare them, but it doesn't change the fact that some people - a not small number - really enjoyed it. Picasso is not a red herring - it is exactly the point. Games are art, and you are trying to objectively compare pieces of art. You can, certainly; you can look at the hues Picasso used versus the hues Van Gogh used, and say Picasso is inferior for not using the full color palette. Okay, fine, whatever you like; but it's not an objective comparison, just because you can come up with objective facts to compare.

I don't read Jon's article as saying he regretted 1UPT or thought it was a mistake. I read it as a very thorough review of what worked well and what didn't. He noted why it did not work (ie, all the things he tried) and why it would be difficult to make work. I think he's wrong, actually - I think it could work more easily than he does - but that's beside the point.

[Elok]

Can anyone conceive of a way to make 1upt workable? I really can't. The closest I can come up with is what Schafer mentioned: bloat the map. Problem is, that would introduce an enormous number of gameplay complications, each requiring its own workaround. For example, no matter how big the map is, roads are still one tile wide, no? You've got an artificial bottleneck right there, especially if you do what V did (apparently b/c road spaghetti is "ugly") and add road maintenance costs. No multi-lane highways here, gentlemen. And even if there were, it'd be annoying to get workers to coordinate that way. Unless you do something to space cities out, even a small map would act a lot like a "huge" map in older Civ games in many ways. Units would need to be faster to take advantage of the map size without giving the player a stroke--but every increase in unit speed makes it harder for the AI, or even a human player, to anticipate the range of potential enemy moves on a small scale. Then there's the question of how long units' attack range should be under such a system.

Really, there are so many ways to discourage stack-of-doom that 1UPT seems like plain laziness. I just thought of another: a stacked defense penalty, to reflect the clumsiness, confusion and lost mobility of tons of soldiers piled together. It doesn't kick in until a certain stack size is reached, but grows exponentially up to a limit after that. You could also beef up collateral damage in one way or another. Or give bonuses to spread-out units. Or the stack limits I already mentioned. All of these would require fine-tuning, and be open to further tinkering as needed. But nope! One unit per tile. Simple, except for all the problems it must inevitably cause. Also: moving to hexes naturally decreases the potential for concentration of force (at melee range) under a 1UPT scheme by 25%. Did they think of that at all?

[Elok]

And yes, huge stacks aren't really invincible in IV either. I'm not the best player, but I know what siege weapons and cavalry do. And air units, if you don't have a strong defense against them. Nothing like getting your whole stack crippled by a couple of units you won't be able to reach for several turns...

[Krill]

Krill, how can you say a player's enjoyment of a game's tactical system can be measured objectively? I enjoy it.

I never said anything about enjoyment.

Also, anyone who comments on the tactics being better in V really doesn't understand warfare in IV.

I like playing with 1UPT because of the way the unit formations work and how you can organize your troops.

That's fine.

Civ4 was okay, but just not as interesting in this dimension.

Your subjective opinion. Which is fine, and not something I've commented on.

I came into Civ5 thinking I'd hate 1UPT, because I didn't want the focus on military; but that was the element I really enjoyed. I wasn't exactly a tactical genius in Civ4 as you well remember, but neither am I in Civ5; perhaps Civ4 is "better" from a tactical genius standpoint.

Which is the more fun game, V or IV? Personal opinion. Whoich is the better 4X game? A 4X game has specific aims, to give players strategic choice that matters. This can be judged objectively as what choices actually matter in the game. V, well, that is best described by another poster:

http://www.dos486.com/civ4/civ5gkics/page2.shtml

With high population thanks to the riverside land but low hammer production, I naturally found myself wishing I could whip these workers and granaries. And that line of thought perhaps hit on the sour taste of Civ 5 for many folks. Stiff. The gameplay is stiff. Civ 4 is all about bending the game to your will. You can whip whatever, go mega specialists if you want, grow into anger if you want, overexpand into economic collapse, make a deeply beelined slingshot with Liberalism, exploit multiplicative math with Bureaucracy/Oxford or Globe Theater/Kremlin. Civ 4 can be molded in any direction you like.

Civ 5 is stiff, inflexible, unbendable. Civ 5 has you follow only the one same predestined path. Cities always grow at the same rate, add social policies on about the same schedule, create and fill the same number of specialist slots, produce Great People at about the same intervals. Almost no matter what you do. The religion system in particular is thoroughly linear with the same steps every time. Where Civ 4 is about choosing and exploring your own path, Civ 5 is about one standard experience, and all you can do is optimize along the way.

And yet... I don't mind that and still enjoy Civ 5 anyway. You might as well get irked at Super Mario Bros for always putting the goombas in the same place. It's just how the game is. It's okay to walk down predictable paths, finding enjoyment in the journey and in the small room for micro-optimizations as you go. Not every game has to be a wide open sandbox. Linearity has a place in game design too. It's like watching a favorite movie or sitcom, where you know in broad strokes what will happen, but taking note in small jokes and lines you didn't notice before.

IV can be described as a better 4X game because the choices a player makes matter, whereas in V, not so much.

I don't know, and don't care; I am me, not you, and I like it better. It has absolutely nothing to do with cookie cutter or anything else for me - I am not and never have been a min-maxer. I don't play Civ to win, I play to have fun. Civ5 tactics are fun for me. Civ4 tactics were not as fun.

The comment was not about "fun". Enjoyment is purely subjective. I said better, and objectively, IV combat tactics have more depth and variation to them than in V. And in a game where the whole point is to give the player more strategic choices, depth and variation are synonymous with better.

You can 'objectively' compare tactical systems through whatever system you want to 'objectively' compare them, but it doesn't change the fact that some people - a not small number - really enjoyed it. Picasso is not a red herring - it is exactly the point. Games are art, and you are trying to objectively compare pieces of art. You can, certainly; you can look at the hues Picasso used versus the hues Van Gogh used, and say Picasso is inferior for not using the full color palette. Okay, fine, whatever you like; but it's not an objective comparison, just because you can come up with objective facts to compare.

Hello Ben. How did you get off my ignore list?

[Elok]

Hello Ben. How did you get off my ignore list?

The gist of that bit seems to be: "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

[-Jrabbit]

So weird to see an impassioned thread about Civ on Apolyton Civilization Site... kinda great!

Well posted, Donegeal! A-plus for you.

[Krill]

There are only 2 people on my ignore list, Ben and Kid, and I think Kid probably didn't deserve it.

[Lancer]

I, because it was first, a concept, and well implemented.
IV, because it was very well done. I'm playing IV with the Revolutions DCM mod today and its practically V.
II, damn good game, for the time.
III, got its bad rep because when it came out it wasn't anywhere near finished. Now it is, but it was a disappointment on release, and a bad one.
V, haven't actually played it but have read up to the point of being the foremost expert on it among non players. Ahem. What I learned prevented me from buying the thing. What a terrible, ill conceived disappointment!

[MRT144]

4-2-1-3-5