Maybe religion could be another screen similar to social policies, so that as you gain “spirtiuality” you can purchase religions and religion “perks” just like policies do now? That could be cool.
In the end though all Civ games are affected by being, well, games–there can only be one winner as mathematically defined. Now, I don’t always or even usually play that way. In “real life,” many different “civilizations” can thrive and prosper; it’s not a zero-sum game. But in Civ games, it is zero-sum, ultimately. So you can’t fault the computer players for not having a sort of broad, humanist appreciation for live and let live. We might be perfectly thrilled to have shepherded our empire from one grass hut to a technically advanced superpower, even if we’re number two or three in points, but the computer will never be happy with that, because it doesn’t add up (literally).
In this respect, while there sure are differences in the way the games handle diplomacy, both Civ IV and Civ V ultimately come down to a “there can be only one” sort of calculus.
I much prefer the board game design of CiV hand down, personally, and am terribly burned out on Civ IV and was before V even hit. I can see why folks still love Civ IV though, but V is more for me.
Much like the term “troll”, apologist has taken on something of a negative meaning but context is key here and the true meaning of the word is neutral. When being used by an internet veteran, apologist probably isn’t intended as an insult. Unless it’s a political discussion, in which case it probably is.
The lack of economic diversity in the civ games has always annoyed me. Civ V is worse than IV in this regard, and IV was better than III, but there was still, generally, a lack of interesting decisions (imo) to make economically. International trade, or the lack there of, has always been a glaring absence, and the inability of the civ series to scale from substinance resource economies to something resembling a modern economy has always annoyed me.
The one unit/tile is simply a poorly implemented system that doesn’t work with the scale of the board and number of units in Civ V. One unit/tile might make more sense if there were 50x the number of squares on the board and 20x as many units during a major war. The developers didn’t quite grok how and why the Panzer General model worked, or predict it’s limitations when importing it into a different genre of game.
I still, however, never played Civ IV enough to get a feeling that the leaders had any personality or difference in approach. I tended to bail out of a Civ IV game after awhile when the micro dragged on or it looked like i had developed enough of an advantage that i couldn’t lose. And i couldn’t go back to vanilla after FfH2 was released.
I’m one of five people who really enjoyed the implementation of spies in Civ 4, but only as a result of a very small number of late game Cold Wars where myself and another nuclear armed power faced off against one another and used spies to blow up one uranium mines and kill agents and such. Other than that, they came into the game too late and were too situational to really nail the enjoyment factor.
Diplo in 4 was terribly static and tended toward the extremes. Either the AI hated you and would do so until the end of time, or it had its head firmly planted up your ass. Religion reduced the already low dynamism by in effect creating set teams in a decidedly not team based game. Which sucked. You could easily end up with a scenario where the entire map was of one mind, religion wise, and then there’d be nothing but boring peace for turn after turn unless the player struck out.
Even if the world wasn’t one big circle jerk, you could still end up with a situation where the AI hated or loved you not for logical reasons like your power or proximity, but for your religious affiliation. That, and the rarity of power moves and betrayals, made the diplo game not fun for me.
KevinC
5447
Ah yes, international trade, that’s another thing I miss in Civ5. I think it was Tom who said something along the lines of Civ5 having a gaping expansion-sized hole where Diplomacy would be, and I thought so as well. Religion, international trade routes, etc would all compliment each other quite well in an expansion pack and would be one I’d snap up in an instant.
Perhaps at the end of the day the boardgame approach just isn’t for me and I should write off Civ5, but there are certainly aspects of 5 that I do enjoy. The new engine is also much less fussy than Civ4 in some ways which is quite nice.
I guess I’ll continue to keep an eye on patch notes and hope for an expansion. Until then, despite the patches making improvements, the game is still too shallow as a Sim and too incompetent as a wargame for my tastes. Hopefully Firaxis has more planned beyond extra Civ DLC additions because I would truly like to love this game.
KevinC
5448
The thing is, that depended a lot on what Leader you were talking about. Stalin didn’t really give a shit either way, but Isabella was a religious fanatic. It mixed up each playthrough a little bit for me and made it feel like each leader had some personality, which is sorely lacking in 5.
And from a Sim perspective, isn’t irrational hatred (or alliance) of another nation based on religious affiliation a fairly big factor in human civilization? I seem to recall at least a few minor skirmishes related to which imaginary friend was better than the other. :)
I wonder though whether a robust trade and diplomacy system would in the end work against the game as a game–after all, the goal of most trade and diplomacy is mutual gain, not destruction of a foe. Grafting a logical or realistic system of trade and diplomacy–logical from a realism point of view–onto a very un-real zero-sum game model of international relations is a recipe for, I’m not sure what, but it probably would be weird.
rezaf
5450
Well, in Civ5, that’s probably the case.
The more I think about it the more I’m concluding the thing that makes it so hard for me to enjoy Civ5 is the board-game approach others are so enjoying.
To me, it’s just not important whether the AI is happy about anything (disregarding the fact that the AI is just a set of rules and happiness doesn’t exist for it), AI players are extras in a movie in which the player is the protagonist. So I’m happy with AI players not trying to win the game per se.
They should strive to survive, be successful, and to follow certain goals - I think Civ4’s trait system wasn’t a bad start, but I’m also sure something far better could be realized - but they should NOT be hellbent on exterminating the other playpieces from the board, imo.
In Civ5, beyond other flaws (and strengths), it’s that simple. To be or not to be. There can only be one. But I want to play a civilization game, not glorified Ludo.
rezaf
Ah, I think I vaguely remember that. We shall have to duke it out in a Shogun 2 thread at some point. But I’m afraid this thread is all bro hugs between us for now.
Apologist could be construed as a negative, but it really shouldn’t be. To me, it’s just someone who’s trying to make a reasoned defense against criticism. In fact, it shouldn’t be any more negative than “critic”!
Also, just to respond to something you said earlier, I really don’t “hate” Civ 5. I don’t care for the game, and it’s absolutely not my cup of tea, and I feel it fails in certain ways that are very important to me. But – scout’s honor! – I’m glad it’s doing well. I have a lot of respect for Firaxis in general, and the lead designer in specific, and it can only mean good things that it’s selling as well as it is and that so many of you are digging it.
-Tom
I am happy if I can play a Civ 5 game where the AI is making me sweat, and immortal and deity levels can do that…
AI diplomacy is predictable but not always, even at deity making sure open borders and friendship declarations are done properly can actually make you friends that last.
But who wants friends, when you can fight using its excellent combat system
What are the best reliable ways to make friends–giving gold or lopsided trade deals? I know you can join wars, but that’s a bit random. Since Civ5 did away with religion, civics, and tech trading, there are not many ways to gain favor. Especially when even leaders halfway around the world still “covet your lands.”
Sarkus
5454
Despite its issues I did get sucked into “just one more turn” late last night with a Civ 5 game. What’s odd is that I really don’t see the differences, but then I hadn’t played the game in months before the most recent patch.
Yeah, but I didn’t give a crap about their religious affiliation, so it gimped them against me. Who cares if they’re worshiping truck nuts, I need them thar resources. Meanwhile, other idiot AIs would watch and wait as I got bigger and bigger because, hey, he also worships truck nuts, <3, he can’t possibly want to gobble us up too after gobbling up adjacent powers one through four!
Changing the happiness of my population based on the religion of the folks I’m fighting? Cool. Doing it to the AI too? Even cooler. That adds a game logic reason for me to avoid attacking religious friends, and to go after religious enemies. But a rando-diplo bonus/penalty? That’s an absurd crutch that meant the AI was on a different rule set.
KevinC
5456
I don’t see that being a problem, really. You can get a similar diplomatic bonus by having open borders long enough or giving them a paltry gift when first meeting. Religion wasn’t the end all and be all of diplomacy, it was one factor in many.
I could see that in a warmongering game it may have lulled the AI a bit, but he problem I see is that there’s not enough of a “Badboy” penalty (to borrow a Paradox term) rather than something inherently wrong with the religion system. I actually think its cool to be able to use religion as a tool like that, almost reminds me of a Salvor Hardin move!
That being said, I understand what you’re saying. I think its just difference in personal preference and approach to the game. You see it as gimping and undermining the AI needlessly whereas I see it as an additional tool I may or may not be able to leverage. I’m more of a builder than a warmonger in most Civ games, so religion was something I could use to help pacify or redirect a potentially hostile neighbor while I built up my economy.
Does anyone else notice the stark difference between the Prince and King difficulty modes? It seems like the AI is generally passive in everything it does on Prince difficulty, from building wonders and armies, to how it conducts war and diplomacy. Whereas on King difficulty and beyond the AI changes to being almost always aggressive in those areas. I kind of wish I could have more control in mixing and matching the bonuses the AI gets with how it plays.
Like others, I do think diplomacy is the weakest aspect of Civ V and the gamey nature of it can be annoying at times (always playing to win as opposed to being realistic). Hopefully, the first expansion will help alleviate these issues.
Yes, the AI really seems to need the King bonuses in order to play a decently aggressive game. I don’t think the strategies are any different, it’s just always rather inefficient and the Prince AI never has sufficient resources to spend (or waste).
The solution to any problem with the neighbors is more dakka.
Problem with builder v warmonger in Civ4 was that warmonger is the dominant strategy. Want to be stronger? Have more land. What’s the cheapest way to get more land? Take it from someone else.
KevinC
5460
Very valid critism, and something Civ5 does better (although I find their implimentaion to be too restrictive at times).
