4621

…

I am going to disagree with folks a bit here city placement does matter, you really want to make sure you get as many luxury resources as possible in your first 3 or 4 cities and have access to iron. Beyond that it doesn’t matter much. Gus and Sulla’s point is that having lots of cities (because of the benefits of higher population, the production advantage of the city square, and for the AI better defense) is better than a having a few well placed and well developed cities. Making smaller empires competitive with larger empires has been the holy grail of Civ design (and many 4x games) for decades. It is probably never going to happen because historically bigger empire are more powerful cause they are bigger.

. It almost feels like some options were “change for the sake of change” as opposed to the evolution of the series. Civ V is to Civ IV as Simcity Societies is to Simcity 4. If this were called “Civ Generals” instead of knowing it was supposed to be “Civ V” many of us would have accepted the changes and differing game-play as we’d know the Civ series would still continue to evolve and become more immersive… feeling like a true Historical World Leader.

I definitely agree with this. I also wanted Civ V not Civ IV+. As it were some of the Civ IV expansion additions were of little value. I was genuinely excited about tactical combat in Civ V. It added a lot to MOO2, although like Civ V it made it hard for the AI to compete.

As it turns out, and many of us feared, global happiness was mistake. The latest patch recognizes this and adds the kludge of restricting a city to having no more building happiness than a city population. This gives us the worst of both worlds. We not only have to deal with global happiness, but understand the happiness rating of each city. Even for a so called power gamer like myself, I got bit by this as I rush bought a Colosseum expecting to see happiness turn from red to green but it didn’t. For the casual gamers this is a bad design because there is no feedback that says buying this building isn’t going to solve your problem. So my friend who got the game for Xmas is almost certain to miss this subtly.

Similarly if you want to penalize big empire than you make the cost of new cities go up exponentially a mechanic that Civ IV used. In Civ V they abandon this in favor of a linear penalty of -2 happiness per city. This can be reduced to a trivial -.5 happiness with forbidden palace and 2 social policies. Moving back from exponential penalty to a linear penalty is good idea because??

One of the more important points that Sulla made was this.

Too Many Penalties: This is a bit of a broad statement, so let me explain what I mean. The most important thing to keep in mind when designing a game is that it should be fun and engaging for the player. Sure, you can go ahead and make that indie game with the deep existentialist plot that investigates man’s place in the universe… but if it’s not fun to play, no one is going to care about it. In general, it’s not a good idea to penalize players too much. When players are confronted by decisions, it’s better to let them pick between different good options, rather than forcing them to choose the lesser of two evils. You could have the player pick between a sword (more damage) or a shield (more protection) but not let them have both. The key thing is to have meaningful, balanced decisions where the player chooses between several different “good” alternatives. Getting back to Civilization terms, you can have Montezuma and an army of bloodthirsty Aztec warriors, or you can have Gandhi and the path to spiritual enlightenment. Both are good options, and if a game is sufficiently entertaining, players will want to return to it again and again to experience different, alternative paths to victory. (This is pretty much the hallmark of the Civilization series.)
Many of the complaints I hear about Civ V is that everything is too meh. Once I have my monument, library and happiness building in a city. It is pointless to build to units as I explained. I often find there is nothing I really want to build, so I build a market or latter a bank not because I think the 2 extra gold will be meaningful, but because of the zero maintenance.
I didn’t reach this stage until very late in the game in Civ IV where I have taken over the continent and I am just grinding away toward a space victory. There was a deliberate nerf of almost all building in Civ V and again I have to ask why was this change made.

I think overall the pacing of Civ V feels wrong, science advance wiz by, while the building of things crawls by. Very earlier in the thread somebody said, I wish things were built about 25% faster. I’ll go further than that I wish I could build stuff twice as fast, alas that would make too many units for a 1UPT game.

At GDC I attended Soren Johnson talk about sequels. He said that good sequels were a bit like a weddings, something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue. Sequels should be One part old, one part new, one part improved. The UI is definitely improved, but they threw away a lot of the old, with the new, it just isn’t better for us long time fans of the series.

4622

This is the part I sorta agree with. And as a builder who hardly ever go for a domination victory this is much more damming than the AI being bad at fighting.

4623

Because this isn’t Sim City 2000, the objective isn’t to build a doll house it’s to win, and good game design is giving the player a reason to use the different methods available to win. If I want to go for a military victory then I should be planning around the map, the enemy AI, etc. If there’s a way that works every time then it’s the game that’s broken, not the player. Self-crippling does not make for compelling gameplay, you’ll simply find the second most effective way to win.

4624

I just played part of an emperor game. No exploity tactics or anything clever, just straightforward normal play. No reloads, of course. By 1000 AD or so I’d conquered two of the three nations on my continent, and had defeated the army of the third (who whimsically attacked me with inferior tech), quitting at a point it was just going to be slowly mopping up a dozen Russian cities. The only reason it was taking so long was that the AI was popping settlers like maggots and kept making cities all over the place.

My W/L record for units during this game was around 40:0. By the time I quit I was using riflemen against pikemen. No idea why the enemies were cranking pikemen, since they had better units they could have built; I guess that was the highest level “defensive” unit available, but in the absence of offensive units, even basic horsemen and swordsmen, the AI forces were totally ineffective. I killed every enemy unit in two civilizations and almost all the enemy units in a third without suffering a single unit lost. And it’s not like I was agonizing over moves; I was just pushing pieces around. This is contemptibly bad AI.

Re the alternative gameplay style notion – I could sort of agree with the general idea, if this wasn’t Civ 5, where every nation will attack you whenever it thinks you’re weak, and at random other times, even when they claim to be “friendly”. If you are neighbors with a civilization, it will eventually attack you for lebensraum. Sometimes the message from the diplomacy screen even suggests that there was no rhyme or reason to the attack, e.g. “You were a fool to trust me”, or “Sorry, but I’m going to take over the world now”. It seems to me only time they go for non-domination victories of their own is if they are on another continent. So basically this is Diplomacy-Civ, where backstabbing is the rule.

4625

That’s a grotesque exaggeration. Civilization is not a pure wargame, it’s perfectly enjoyable even when the AI builds and moves its units somewhat randomly. The weak tactical AI only seems catastrophic to people who insist on treating Civ5 as a wargame. To take your example, it’s like complaining about bad driver AI in Grand Theft Auto because it’s worse than in Gran Turismo.

I recall your first Fidgit post after the game’s release. You played on the smallest two-player map so you could focus entirely on combat. You said this was how you liked to play Civilization, and that completely baffled me. For my part, I don’t understand why anyone would want to play any Civ version with such a restrictive setup that overemphasizes combat at the expense of everything else.

There’s no excuse for it and people who try to justify or overlook it are doing the genre a horrible disservice, whether they’re talking about something by Firaxis, Creative Assembly, or Vic Davis.

Oh please, as if loudly complaining about bad AI on the Internet would magically make it better! The Civ4 AI only got as good as it is because Firaxis eventually hired an outside modder, remember. I expect another modder will eventually improve the Civ5 AI, too. Nobody is going to be deterred from the attempt just because some people think the AI is acceptable as it is.

But there’s absolutely no equivalence between the Civ V and Civ IV AIs. The Civ IV AI understood a cornerstone of that game’s design, which was combined arms, and that’s why “stacks of doom”, as some of you call them, is a viable way to play. But when Civ V went to its fiddly tactical mode, it could no longer get away with the AI brute forcing its way through combat.

I disagree that the Civ5 AI can’t brute-force its way through combat; I’m still losing cities on Prince when the AI has a local superiority of units. And when you say Civ4 AI you of course mean the patched Civ4 BtS AI that we eventually got, not the release AI which I don’t recall being all that smart about stack composition.

(BTW, I’m wondering whether people who gripes about stacks of doom understand how arty works in Civ IV. It’s a counter to amassed units, but you have to understand the mechanics of collateral damage, and you have to think of many of your arty units as disposable.)

I understand that mechanic quite well, it’s one of the things I hated most about the Civ4 combat system. Using artillery as suicide bombers was idiotically unrealistic. As I said before, I greatly prefer a system that’s more realistic even if the AI can’t play it as well.

I’m glad some of you guys are enjoying Civ V in whatever capacity you’re enjoying it, but for a lot of us who are really interested in strategy gaming, it’s one of the most shameful things to happen to the genre in a long time.

So would you say it’s even worse than a flight simulator showing the wrong number of rivets on a Messerschmitt Bf 109 A? :p

4626

Says you. I disagree, playing Civ purely to win was always boring, in all versions of the game. It’s the doll house part I find appealing.

4627

You don’t recall it very well, because I said no such thing.

My point was that this was one way I enjoy a quick game is by picking two random factions and pitting them against each other on a tiny map. That’s not how I routinely play the game. When I sit down to play Civ, it’s usually going to be an epic 40-hour game.

Anyway, for whatever reason, you’re bound and determined to be an apologist for Civ V’s AI. I just don’t get it. I understand how people might enjoy Civ V, but I don’t get how they can pretend that the AI is acceptable.

 -Tom
4628

Sadly, the big announcement that the patch would improve AI turned out to contain little truth. This is especially baffling given all the wargames with decent AI, even the simpler ones like Battle Island, as has been mentioned further above.

Are there any rumors whether they are going to do something for real about it? Because I can forgive all the design decisions and enjoy the game as is, if only the AI would put up a decent fight at least. Other than that, it’s back to Civ4 with one of the many wonderful mods for me, even though I do like the hex-map so much better.

4629

Okay, sorry for misremembering that part. I thought that particular setup was perhaps a reason why you disliked the game so much, since the small scale highlights the poor tactical AI.

Anyway, for whatever reason, you’re bound and determined to be an apologist for Civ V’s AI. I just don’t get it. I understand how people might enjoy Civ V, but I don’t get how they can pretend that the AI is acceptable.

Acceptable within the context of the entire game. That’s not the same as flawless. I’d welcome a better tactical AI, I just don’t see this defect as especially serious. If I were to allocate resources for improving Civ5 I’d prioritize other things over the tactical AI at this point, such as improving city states and the balance of terrain bonuses vs build costs.

4630

Fair enough, I hear what you’re getting at. However, to me, the tactical combat is such a central part of the design, which is why I was making the (admittedly exaggerated) comparison to AIs being unable to aim in a shooter. When you talk about the “context of the entire game”, I can’t help but feel that combat – and specifically tactical combat given how the 1UPT is such an important new feature – forms a disproportionate part of that context.

BTW, I’m docking points for you objecting to the arty in Civ IV as being “unrealistic”. :) Otherwise, I’m going to bring up archers firing arrows over lakes.

 -Tom
4631

Well you may or may not be in a minority overall, but I’m positive that on this forum that vast majority of us play Civ to win. Now there are several ways to win in Civ and many of them don’t involve wiping out the enemy. My 3rd game was the Bollywood challenge (Cultural victory with India and no more than 3 cities) so only I fought defensive wars. BTW, the Steam achievements are another thing I like better about V than IV.

No offense Chris, but based on your comments on FNV, that you didn’t bother to boost your combat skills to near 100 and focused on speech, I think you probably take more of pacifist approach to game than most folks on this or certainly CivFanatics forum.

The only way I managed to ever lose a city in Civ V, as I described earlier was to lose all of military and than not build another one until the AI finally got enough force to take out a city and this was at Emperor, once I added two War Chariots and wall I stopped attack by two civs who ganged up on me. So I am still scratching my head about how you can lose a city a Prince.

In truth the AI doesn’t seem to be good at much of anything, even at Emperor and my couple of immortal games I managed to build 80% of the Wonders I wanted before the AI. I’ve won every type of victory at level between King and Immortal with small to very larger empires I never felt like I was ever in serious danger of losing. I also could forgive (barely) an incompetent tactical AI, if my computer opponent provided me with any type of challenge. It just doesn’t and there aren’t even cool reward like you had SimCity for getting the really awesome skyscrapers, or the wow awesome ride for RollCoaster Tycoon, or great course award that one got in Sid’s under appreciated gem SimGolf

I haven’t given up on Civ V, but this is much out of loyalty to Sid and all the wonderful hours of enjoyment he has given me with his games over the last 20 years as anything else.

4632

No offense taken, I definitely love building jacks-of-all-trades and dicking around in suboptimal ways in all games that give me the option! :)

So I am still scratching my head about how you can lose a city a Prince.

Simple, the AI had lots of units and I had too few… eventually they’ll get through.

4633

I don’t see what that has to do with anything. This forum is a tiny minority of Civ gamers, and we know that on other topics it’s definitely not a representative minority either. CivFanatics is probably the same; the name itself tells you that it’s a place where the hardcore hang out. I wouldn’t be surprised if most gamers aren’t particularly interested in ferreting out every AI flaw and bug in the quest for victory; you’ll just never hear from them because they’re simply not that fanatical about the franchise.

My sister plays (or played) Civ in the same way as Chris does, but to a more extreme level. She sets the difficulty to easy, and reloads every time something goes wrong. The tactical side of the game is completely irrelevant as far as she’s concerned; it’s all about building an empire.

4634

I agree with Chris et al when it comes to playing Civ5 as a builder and not looking at it as a war-game. The inability of the AI to approach war in a smart way has so little bearing on my enjoyment that it is practically irrelevant. I’ve never attempted a domination victory, although I have a solid mix of all the other victory conditions. For me, war is to be avoided and not used as a means of gain; I typically defend and push back if required to protect my civ.

I can see the AI being a big turn off for those that focus on the war aspect of the game and enjoy it. There’s nothing wrong with playing that way nor is it wrong to want a smarter game, but the assumption that the majority of players come at Civ5 for the battles may be flawed.

4635

She’s probably at the extreme end of the spectrum (as is Sulla and Strollen, just on the other side), but I expect there’s more Civ players like her and the average is probably closer to me and Chris’ style of play, which is why the hyperbole from Tom and Strollen rubs me the wrong way.

I’d love a perfect AI that both challenges them on their Emperor maps and can be toned down for me to have fun on Prince (also defined by Firaxis as Normal difficulty - probably for a reason that has to do with the average Civ player), but like Chris I feel there’s other aspects, that are just as important to improve.

And Civ IV never had perfect AI and certainly didn’t start out that way. Just go back and read all the “how to win a Domination victory by 1 A.D”-threads on CivFanatics back then.

4636

I did one domination victory because I wanted the achievement. That was that.

4637

I guess it depends on how you define “playing to win”.

While I disagree with Chris’ notion that the AI is “decent” now, I’m playing the game in a similar way.

I do enjoy “winning”, but my most prominent victory type in Civ4 was, by FAR, the spaceship victory.

Because I enjoy building up my civilization and seeing a world unfold.
Yeah, it’s a pretty simple world (there’s a lot of room for improvements here in the Civ series, imo), but it’s a world nonetheless.

To me, it was exciting to see what AI’s were in the game with me, and how they’d develop throughout the game.
I liked having interactions with the AI nations - even with BtS there was a lot of room for improvements in the diplomacy ballpark, but it was a good start. You could have “friends” and foes - within certain limits.

Anyway, by going for a Space Ship victory, I could ensure I’d see most of that world unfold, and I could develop my civ through the ages to reach a very advanced state. That - for me - is the “dollhouse” part of Civ.
In most games, I could probably have won a domination victory LONG before the game ended, but I chose not to.
In many games, I deliberately ended wars when I felt I had met my objective, such as securing parts of a continent, acquiring a resource or even ensuring the safety of an ally.
Even if it’d have been trivial to just keep marching on with my SoD and wipe a civ from the face on the planet.

rezaf

4638

I think you guys/gals are missing the point. What Tom has been saying is that their is a core design feature within the game that the AI hasn’t been properly programmed to use. We’re not talking a tweak here. If you don’t use that component in the game so don’t see it as a big deal, cool. But to say it’s not important to you therefore what the heck are all you warmongers bitching about is ridiculous. Every game I purchase i want the AI to be competent in all aspects of the design. If there’s a feature in the game that the AI doesn’t understand than either fix it or remove the feature. This is regardless of whether I would use the feature or not.

You don’t go the combat route so you say who cares about the inept tactical AI. But can you understand that there ARE people who do and therefore be supportive instead of dismissive about their observations? Don’t you want a game where the AI understands all elements of the design? Because by not doing so, what happens when CIV 6 comes out with a great tactical AI, but somehow they skrew up the empire building features. Would you want to come here to complain and get met with people going “Meh, I just want to play it like a wargame so who cares? Go play SimCity if you want that sort of game.”

And trying to say most people play it this way or that way is unsupported speculation and is irrelevant to the actual debate. The debate being that there is a core design element that the AI is unable to use properly and that we as gamers should demand that the game makers make the AI competent enough to use it (not perfect, competent).

It’s obvious the designers WERE trying to make CIV 5 more wargamey, they’ve even said so (talking about Panzer General as an inspiration). And they failed. I’m almost thinking that for the empire building crowd that’s a good thing, because you have less to worry about from aggressive nations. IF, at some point, they do fix the tactical AI, I almost wonder whether you guys/gals will return complaining that the AI is too warmongery and are hindering your ability to build :-)

Jorune

ps. I quoted you Hans as an example. My apologies if it appears I am singling you out, that is not my intention.

4639

Glad to see it, since you clearly haven’t read any of my posts. So way to go .

I am being supportive, I even wrote that I’d also like a better AI - I just didn’t see it as completely broken or the most important aspect. So don’t go and say, that I/we can’t see where you guys are coming from - I just don’t agree on the size of the problem.

I’m not the one using hyperbole and calling the game broken or the lack of a complete AI rewrite shameful.

And while I’ll admit to speculating on how most people play, I wouldn’t call it unsupported. I’m sure Firaxis have an idea who their customers are, and while Sully point to the leaderboards and beta testers to prove that people are giving up on the game, we can point to the actual numbers from Steam and point to how many people are still playing this completely broken mess of a game.
Of course a minority can still be totally right, but I wasn’t the one who started using the “look who isn’t/is playing the game”-argument.

4640

Okay, I see where you’re coming from. I need the game to have a good tactical AI for it to work the way I play. But I agree with you that the game isn’t completely broken because that one feature doesn’t work. I can’t play it in it’s current form, but it’s not like Elemental. You agree with the problem, you just think they’re over exaggerating the state of the game. I stand corrected.

Jorune