4801

I came into this thread wondering if it was worth it and after reading the last 4 pages, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s really not worth it at this point if you play the AI exclusively like I do.

4802

One of the Civ 5 systems that I would love to see changed or modded is the city defense system. In previous versions of Civ, leaving a city undefended was very risky, especially early in a game. I have lost many a city to a wandering barbarian unit because I was not patient enough.

Cities in Civ 5 don’t share the same concerns and it really makes barbarians very weak as well as making it difficult for the AI to form a cohesive attack force. What I would love to see is the following system.

  1. When a city is founded, it starts out as a level 1 city which would not have any defensive abilities and would not be able to garrison any troops.

  2. At population 3, the city would become a level 2 city which would then allow for barracks to be built. Once a city has a barracks, it could then garrison a unit.

  3. At population 5, a city could then build a settler unit and build city walls. The addition of city walls would increase the defensive value of the garrisoned unit. Cities at this level would also get a 1 hex attack radius.

  4. At population 7, a city would function as a regular city does now in Civ 5. it would have a 2 hex attack range.

The above levels would need to be play tested and balanced, but this type of system would make barbarians more of an early game threat as well as making cities weaker when they are young and small. The player would have to account for defending his/her territory a bit more before going on an offensive.

-Hrnac

4803

Hans, my comment was about Adam dismissing criticism of the AI as “getting worked up” and chiming in with the snarky bit about how he’s a terrible gamer for enjoying it (i.e. the “it’s fun!” defense). I have no problem with him – or anyone – liking Civ V and playing it however he wants. But I have a problem with reviewers who gloss over very real faults because they’re having fun, or whatever. It’s the easiest, lowest denomination, most content-free, irrefutable, inarticulate defense of a game to declare that it’s good because you’re enjoying it.

And, really, I don’t mean to single Adam out, since he’s got plenty of company. But I still can’t figure out that thing about how Civilization has always been a puzzle game.

 -Tom
4804

Civ is about as much of a puzzle game as chess is a FPS. :)

-Hrnac

4805

This is why reviews are tough to decipher as they represent the reviewers opinion of the game reviewed. If reviewer A plays Civ 5 and enjoys it for whatever reason and reviewer B hates it, which review is correct? In the end, the most important opinion of a game is ones own. One mans enjoyment is another mans poor review and vice versa.

My own belief is that Civ 5 tried too hard to be too different from Civ 4 and went the revolutionary path instead of the evolutionary path of design. Civ 5 should have built upon the excellent Civ 4 foundation adding new systems and further refining others. removing entire systems like Religion and espionage was too drastic and really takes away from the overall atmosphere of the game in general.

I am surprised that they did not at least consider giving each Civ a single religion and then adding in some bias toward them. For example, the Americans might be given Christianity while the Indians would be Hindu. The bias would make each civ like the other a bit less due to having different religions, but not enough to prevent them from becoming allies. Civs could also be given a chance to change religions from time to time under certain circumstances which might allow a struggling Civ to gain a measure of favor from a stronger Civ by doing so. Perhaps something like this could be modded into the game down the road.

-Hrnac

4806

Oh, man. I’m not the most religious person in the world, but even I know what a diaster that would have been.

4807

Uh-oh, I probably shouldn’t go down this road, but I disagree somewhat, Hmac.

It’s not about being correct. It’s about articulating your experience of something. That “for whatever reason” part is pretty important. Calling something fun or saying you enjoyed it isn’t a very helpful way to articulate that experience. And it’s certainly not a very helpful metric when we’re talking about problems like the AI being unable to play the game as it was designed. I don’t doubt that Adam had fun with Civ and if he reviewed it – I don’t recall if he did the GI review – I’m sure he had more to say that whether it was fun.

Anyway, those of us on the H.M.S. NoCivV4Me are glad you guys are having fun with Civ V. Whatever butters your biscuit. But on this boat, we think games that work as they’re intended are more fun than games that don’t.

 -Tom
4808

Are there any religion mods for Civ V?

-Tom
4809

I agree for the most part with what you are saying. I own Civ 5 and for the most part in the “waiting for the game AI to be improved” camp, so I too would probably like to hop on the H.M.S. NoCivV4Me.

-Hrnac

4810

If I recall correctly, there may be some sort of Mod that assigns a religion to the city states or something like that. Not sure if the mod adds a religion to the main civs.

-Hrnac

4811

I’m gonna play me some SMAC - Miriam hasn’t had a good nuking in a while…

4812

This patch has only one thing that matters to me, the hopefully wast reduction of turn times. My albeit weak quad-core uses ages on processing a single turn from 1100+ AD and up, I don’t care for sitting 1-3 minutes per turn when I at times use 15 seconds on mine.

And thats on maps with almost no land.

4813

You know, the snarky bit could be related to certain people chiming in yet again to tell us how much they still hate the game, regurgitating all the same old criticisms and generally sounding very much as if they did have a problem with other people liking Civ5…

But I have a problem with reviewers who gloss over very real faults because they’re having fun, or whatever. It’s the easiest, lowest denomination, most content-free, irrefutable, inarticulate defense of a game to declare that it’s good because you’re enjoying it.

That makes no sense. If I’m enjoying a game then by definition none of its faults are too severe to be glossed over. Otherwise I wouldn’t enjoy the game. Which by extension means that those outside your boat think it’s hyperbole to say the AI is “unable to play the game as designed”. Ascendancy had an AI that was truly unable to play the game, Civ5 merely has a weak but still serviceable AI. Being unable to beat Tom Chick or other Civ4 grognards is not a knock-out flaw in a game.

4814

Well it tends to happen when theres a patch and the AI isn’t fixed at all.

That makes no sense. If I’m enjoying a game then by definition none of its faults are too severe to be glossed over. Otherwise I wouldn’t enjoy the game. Which by extension means that those outside your boat think it’s hyperbole to say the AI is “unable to play the game as designed”. Ascendancy had an AI that was truly unable to play the game, Civ5 merely has a weak but still serviceable AI. Being unable to beat Tom Chick or other Civ4 grognards is not a knock-out flaw in a game.

Being unable to beat anyone at the normal difficulty, however, is a knock-out flaw. I won my first game easily and I didn’t even know what I was doing. I don’t think I’ve ever beaten a Civ game at the “fair” difficulty and I’ve played them all. I’m about as far as a grognard as you can be when it comes to Civ. I’m not even sure I understand the mechanics of Civ5 after having played it for 20 hours or so, but I still can’t lose unless I go out of my way to do so.

4815

Fortunately that’s not true. You are not “anyone.”

4816

Civ 5 was designed around the new one unit/hex tactical combat model. The AI is unable to push units around with any meaningful understanding of that model. You can call it whatever you like – “Serviceable”, huh? That’s what you’re going to go with? – but I tend to think strategy gamers of all skill levels and play styles deserve better from the games they buy.

Anyway, sorry you’re so bothered that I chose to chime in about the state of Firaxis’ post-release support. I thought it was kinda, you know, relevant given the extensive patch notes.

 -Tom
4817

There was a leap when I went from Civ3 to Civ4. I didn’t have to do nearly as many dirty tricks to keep the trade network and the pathfinding from slowing down the turns. But with Civ4, I was mostly programming things in a straightforward way that not optimized for speed but could be maintained better (and more understandable to other programmers/modders). I didn’t really feel limited by the machine unless the maps got too big. In many cases, I’m not sure what I would do with more cycles. If the units looked at a 20-tile radius instead of 10. I’m not even sure what I would do with that information.

Mostly, the trick is being able to predict which gameplay challenges an AI can handle reasonably and which ones they can’t.

4818

GalCiv 2 had a use max AI option. I think that would make sense for more games in the genre. Publishers might disagree though.

If an AI can’t handle something, shouldn’t the game on the concept be reworked or removed if practical? (budget may get in the way here, I know)

I want my AI’s to be able to compete with me, provided neither of us “cheat”. (via AI cheats or human exploits of the AI which aren’t logical)

4819

Yeah I’m a fucking Civ god.

Oh wait, I suck at Civ and so do all my friends, yet we somehow handily won our first 4 games.

The AI doesn’t know how the play the game. I’d say thats a pretty big fucking issue.

4820

And for $19.99 here for the next 12 hours.