I think this raises a good point.
The further you get from the normal setup for Civ V, the more problems seem to be exacerbated. Some problems show up on any map, mainly the tactical AI and diplomacy issues.
Others things only become serious issues on big maps. Major slowdowns don’t seem to happen using DX9 or normal maps but show up on bigger maps or using DX10. Happiness becomes a major problem on big maps with sprawling empires, but usually are manageable on normal maps. It’s not necessarily the core game design that’s the problem, but the lack of scaling that causes some issues. As such, some of these things may be easily fixable - for example, it could be as simple as re-scaling the core happiness number to the map size.
That may also be why we see such divergent opinions about the game (though the majority like the game just fine, even those hardcore players at Civfanatics - poll after poll bears that out). Since I’ve always played the entire Civ series on the more normal settings (normal maps, average number of enemies), I’m not running into some of the same issues that other folks encounter. I’m not purposely limiting myself, it’s just the way I’ve always generally played the Civ series.
hong
3722
Right. And when you went to war, it was “move to city 14, build a tank, move to city 15, build an infantry, oops, I mean a gunship, move to city 16, …” I love the new no-stack system, it makes building and maintaining killer stacks a thing of the past. Moving the units around maybe takes a bit more planning, but anyone who’s familiar with Panzer General should have no problems with it.
Yeah, funnily enough I had that happen right after I posted. Although when I noticed it was actually right after I adopted Secularism (in Rationalism) which gives +2 sci per specialist, so I thought it’d just gone nuts for their new value. I was unhappy at the time though.
Another curious thing was that, when it was “specialist-crazy,” the focuses actually were inverted sometimes; science focus would produce less science than gold focus, for example, sometimes. And in general the +2 scientists and +2 artists here and there made my gold income crash precipitously.
Turning on manual specialist management (which boots all the specialists by default) made the focuses work properly again, at which point I could manually create specialists as desired. I’m hoping I can mostly use these managers with slight tweaks; it’s quite a bit less hassle than manually rejiggering every single city every time I change gears.
Incidentally, is anyone else feeling the lack of the old “cities screen” ala Civ 2-4? That was a hugely useful screen for absent-minded people to visualize their empires strengths, what cities were growing, etc. Obviously the empire-wide abstraction of happiness removes one of its main uses, but I still find myself missing it when I want to see all my cities’ comparative production at a glance, or commerce.
Enidigm
3724
Part of the issue with happiness is honestly the rather binary nature of happiness and what it influences. There is, in a sense, no reason that happiness should or should not reduce growth, and looking through the XML files you could, at least in theory, modify happiness to effect any number of factors, at (perhaps) any number of thresholds. I think there is an argument that the incredibly harsh, binary penalties of global happiness really constrict gameplay in a way unhappiness did not in previous Civ games and distort the value of game elements, forcing players down a particular happiness management path. The idea, i think, to constrict continental empires from blowing everyone out of the water through military expansion, has many other consequences, intended or not.
I like expanding. Given that the tag line is of Civ “build an empire to stand the test of time,” and that one of the Xs in 4X is “expanding,” I don’t think it’s out of line that Civ should reward creating new cities and then developing them. “Hunker down in a corner and then live frugally within carefully defined limits” is the tag line for a game I do not wish to play.
Reducing micromanagement by forcing you to keep your number of cities low, raze conquered cities, etc. is like treating athlete’s foot by amputation. It clearly works, but it misses the point. The proper way of reducing micromanagement is by actually reducing micromanagement. Give the player streamlined ways of managing large number of cities, don’t take his cities away.
The Order tree does of course have some sprawl aids, continuing the Civ1 vintage strategy of Bigger Empires Through Communism. But because it arrives in the industrial era I think you’d basically have to save up all of your social policies until then (as if you weren’t penalized enough in the meantime) because your total number will be necessarily lower.)
Or, stay strictly with puppets until the industrial age, then splurge on Order and start annexing. You right click the Social Policy notification to make it go away, according to the manual, something I couldn’t figure out in-game.
I think this is the best way to do it.
FYI - If you reset your memos, you’ll notice they tell you to right-click to get rid of the social policy pop-up as well.
KevinC
3728
Until the bastards decide to start building Wonders that you want to build elsewhere. :)
I wonder if the game could use more impassable or very hard to traverse land tiles in addition to impassable mountains. I’d like to simulate the isolation of, say, Egypt due to the surrounding areas, for instance, and you really can’t do that in this game because desert is effectively plains in regards to movement/combat. Maybe if it was like that Dune mod for Civ IV, or perhaps not as harsh, but where moving over desert tiles wasn’t possible until a certain tech, or caused damage, or something? With everything being able to move at least one hex though, and movement allowances being usually one or two on land, maybe that wouldn’t work either.
It just seems odd that vast expanses of deserts are really no problem for movement.
1-2 damage per turn for moving over a desert hex outside of anyone’s cultural borders would be a great terrain modifier…
Yeah, that’s the sort of thing I’m thinking might be interesting. Don’t know what the long-term effects might be, but it would be cool to have deserts have some role other than “potential place for oil.” Particularly in the pre-industrial era.
KevinC
3733
As if the AI didn’t have enough ways to stupidly suicide their units! Seriously, though, I like the concept a lot.
+1
If the AI could handle it, that would add a nice twist (and some personality) to the gameplay. Excellent idea.
I was thinking that a geography mod could be cool. More food, more variations on tiles, more Natural Wonders (or just a larger pool to mix from) they would help the happiness on larger maps and I’m tired of constantly finding the 7 or so in game.
I also wanted canals - it’s always the problem with Civ games that even in modern times you have to go all the way around Africa (or the equivalent) and unless you’re a submarine the Bering Strait (or equivalent) is always frozen solid.
Something like:
Canal:
-1 food/-1 hammers/+1 gold
Any tile but mountains + 50% construction price in hills, -50% construction price if the tile already has a river.
River bonus to sorrounding tiles
Ships can pass through tile like water
I’m not feeling the lack, as it’s still there in Civ V. Right under the current turn number in the upper right corner there’s a button called “Additional Information”. Click it and select “Economic Overview” from the list and voilà - There’s your cities screen.
Reldan
3737
Another of the Xs is Exploit, which this game emphasizes over Expansion (which previous Civs emphasized). The game rewards efficiency above all else, because Civ V is actually a resource optimization game and not a wargame or an expansion game at its core. However, if you don’t think that Civ V can reward creating/conquering and developing new cities than I’m not sure what to tell you, as I disagree. There are advantages to both large and small empires and each poses a different optimization challenge.
Wisdom for the ages.
skyride
3738
Someone should write a Civ 4 guide for Civ 5 players. I always found the higher difficulties in Civ 4 too daunting to even bother trying but doing well in Civ 5 at the higher difficulties is giving me some renewed confidence to go back to Civ 4 and give it another shot.
Is there a thread on best starting point for Civ 4 (mods/expansion)? Or maybe I should jump straight into FFH2 since everyone loves that.
That would be like trying to write an AOW guide for Elemental players. Different games.
If I were going to suggest Civ IV guides, I’d go with these:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165632 (strategy for beginners)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215506 (leader traits)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=197818 (beginners guide to the specialist economy)
As for FFH2, I’d only try it after you’ve played Civ IV for a while. It’s an excellent mod, but it can get pretty confusing and is more complex than the Civ IV series.
Aceris
3740
I play CivIV on King/Emperor but I never managed to get an early specialist economy working, either managed the slingshot but had screwed myself too badly to do it, or didn’t bother with the slingshot and found I had no hammers and therefore didn’t expand quickly enough. I’m not sure if the chopping changes made it less effective.
And I can’t even remember what the slingshot is now :)
Fall from Heaven is much easier at higher difficulties in my experience. Probably because the AI doesn’t really understand all the new stuff. It’s made me less good at CivIV, because I concentrate on getting the next magic bullet rather than good general development.
