(March 20th, 2013, 15:48)Ichabod Wrote: But I contest the supposed micro intesivity of Civ IV. If you play the game doing the following:
*Automating workers
*Following suggested tech research and city builds
*Considering that newer civics are better civics
*Playing below noble difficulty
Suddenly, Civ IV is a very casual game. It still gives the "one more turn" vibes and I know a lot of people that played it like that (I was one of them before discovering civanatics).
I played my very first game of Civ4 this way and I lost by culture to Gandhi
I do see what you mean though. I started out playing quite casually but the more I played Civ IV the more involved I got in its various systems and mechanics and the more micro-intensive I played. I'm not one of those "Civ V is a terrible horrible game people" but when I had a similar progression in V I found that when I tried to go beyond the straightforward casual style of play of my first few games, there wasn't really anything there. Which is a shame...
(March 20th, 2013, 23:10)SevenSpirits Wrote: The icon for gold used to be the same icon that's used for commerce. I think it was almost impossible to NOT be confused by that.
I remember that throwing me for a loop. Especially with regard to Bureaucracy
(March 20th, 2013, 23:10)SevenSpirits Wrote: The icon for gold used to be the same icon that's used for commerce. I think it was almost impossible to NOT be confused by that.
Now, the fact that you were still in the dark up until now is pretty funny.
Yeah it really is. Now I feel like I have to run through a guide of the GUI and mechanics before I play anymore, and make sure there aren't any other egregious errors.
@Ichabod:
I think there are different kinds of casual players. First the ones who play it like a sim. For those chieftain-difficulty and making anything automatic does work fine . They have little interst in higher difficulties and are happy playing it that way. But the second group of casual has a more sporting attitude. While they don't want to elve into complex-systems they do want to have some sort of progress. They do want to leave chieftain andmove up the rangs. But those run into a hard wall in Civ 4. If you want to have success in the higher difficulties you have to delve deep. you have to do a lot of micromanaging. If you do play Civ 4 casual Monarch becomes a heavy struggle.
And a huge part of that was stack-combat. From Monarch up the AI with its boni will have a lot more units and will simple kill your stack and empire. So for the second type of casuals Civ 4 was frustrating. A small empire with a small Army had no chance to withstand the big guy. No battle of the Thermophyle here.
Civ 5 with the 1upt makes it possible that even small empires with a small army can hold up the big guy. Since the sliders got removed you don't have to bother with all the hassle you have with them. With the huge abstraction you don't need to delve deep into systems etc. With no whip you don't have to micro growth/whipping/overflow etc. So Civ 5 had the eye-candy for the casuals of type 1 and eased alot of the micromanaging for casual type2.
The prize was that it lost alot of the depth Civ4 had. I really doubt that firaxis will return to a more complex game with civ 6.
They'll only take a few elements from Civ5. Stuff like dynamic cities (not always the big fat cross, makes much more sense), hexagon board, natural graphics, and the culture system. Combat is another big thing, but I think both the devs and the players realize that there needs to be a compromise between the two ways of doing combat. We might see a system with limited stacking in the future. Hopefully some Civ4 elements will be gone forever, things like Slavery and Nationhood civics, the sliders, and stacks of doom. A perfect Civ game would be easy to understand, but hard to master. Appeals to both kind of gamers, and is overall a better game.
(March 21st, 2013, 04:36)Rowain Wrote: @Ichabod:
I think there are different kinds of casual players. First the ones who play it like a sim. For those chieftain-difficulty and making anything automatic does work fine . They have little interst in higher difficulties and are happy playing it that way. But the second group of casual has a more sporting attitude. While they don't want to elve into complex-systems they do want to have some sort of progress. They do want to leave chieftain andmove up the rangs. But those run into a hard wall in Civ 4. If you want to have success in the higher difficulties you have to delve deep. you have to do a lot of micromanaging. If you do play Civ 4 casual Monarch becomes a heavy struggle.
And a huge part of that was stack-combat. From Monarch up the AI with its boni will have a lot more units and will simple kill your stack and empire. So for the second type of casuals Civ 4 was frustrating. A small empire with a small Army had no chance to withstand the big guy. No battle of the Thermophyle here.
Civ 5 with the 1upt makes it possible that even small empires with a small army can hold up the big guy. Since the sliders got removed you don't have to bother with all the hassle you have with them. With the huge abstraction you don't need to delve deep into systems etc. With no whip you don't have to micro growth/whipping/overflow etc. So Civ 5 had the eye-candy for the casuals of type 1 and eased alot of the micromanaging for casual type2.
The prize was that it lost alot of the depth Civ4 had. I really doubt that firaxis will return to a more complex game with civ 6.
(March 21st, 2013, 07:34)Jowy Wrote: They'll only take a few elements from Civ5. Stuff like dynamic cities (not always the big fat cross, makes much more sense), hexagon board, natural graphics, and the culture system. Combat is another big thing, but I think both the devs and the players realize that there needs to be a compromise between the two ways of doing combat. We might see a system with limited stacking in the future. Hopefully some Civ4 elements will be gone forever, things like Slavery and Nationhood civics, the sliders, and stacks of doom. A perfect Civ game would be easy to understand, but hard to master. Appeals to both kind of gamers, and is overall a better game.
I agree Dynamic Cities and Hex tiles are definitely the best things they brought to the table.
There are very interesting things coming from 1UPT and hex tiles ... but lets face it. Panzer General is a different type of game than civ.
Where is the broad front protecting only a single city? Certainly having cities larger than the landscape is an abstraction, but I think it is a necessary one.
I would like my Civ 6 cities to be massive things that could be surrounded by upwards of 20 hex tiles.
Maybe each time a building is created a new hex tile is captured. Every time the population increases a new hex is captured. Now, economics would need some reworking. For instance, the base yield of the city should increase each time a new hex comes into the fold. The unimproved yield of course ... EXCEPT for great people improvements ... those remain. Makes Great People a bit more relevant, and fairly easy to bring into the fold of a city.
City combat would then be more interesting. Perhaps the city can still attack out, at a few hexes perhaps, but ... once an enemy unit occupies a city tile, that city can no longer attack out (at least from that direction).
City battles can be to protect the city walls, but it can also be to protect the city center. Enemy units occupying a population tile can damage or capture (and damage) that point of population, and enemy units occupying a building can damage it for pillage gold.
Ultimately these tiles will not go away ... but, after the city is outside of combat the population will slowly return (but faster than pop growth) and you can use cash to repair the buildings.
I know, a bit complicated. It could be simplified but ... if cities are going to be large they CANNOT be used as teleportation devices. (Modern) cities would be large enough that 1UPT armies would still need to be fairly large to defend a city that is within a giant plain.
In other words?
Make continents have MANY more tiles ... perhaps make tiles somewhat less important from an economic perspective, but above nil, and make cities (and continents) harder to 'fill up' with a carpet of doom.
Essentially, 1UPT is an interesting concept, but without more space to maneuver, it will not succeed as a long term aspect.
I am also not afraid of a 'giant' carpet of doom, because upkeep costs would somewhat prevent that. Plus, large cities would allow for many of the 'extra' units to merely occupy the city.
Additionally, further 'extra' units can occupy a nebulous space known as the pre-deployment zone (a gui that lists all pre-deployed units)... and produced units can be later placed within any tile of any city connected to the capital.
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
(March 21st, 2013, 07:34)Jowy Wrote: A perfect Civ game would be easy to understand, but hard to master. Appeals to both kind of gamers, and is overall a better game.
