Sometimes (actually, very often in history) nations just invaded each other because they could. It's tribalism writ large. It doesn't happen as much any more (the stakes are too high) but especially pre-Industrial Revolution, most of the countries in the world were skirmishing with each other off and on.
Yeah, I know, from a realistic/historical point of view the game is pretty close, but it's pretty annoying as a game.Sometimes (actually, very often in history) nations just invaded each other because they could. It's tribalism writ large. It doesn't happen as much any more (the stakes are too high) but especially pre-Industrial Revolution, most of the countries in the world were skirmishing with each other off and on.
I like the fact the diplomatic AI is much more unpredictable unlike in civ IV, but it's damn annoying when you want to focus on science or culture to get attacked by another civ no matter if you're friends with them, simply because they want your territory.
It makes diplomacy almost useless. Almost every leader is a backstabber, a traitor which is realistic to a certain point but also really annoying.
Hopefully with an update or maybe a real expansion the diplomacy will be much more transparent like in Civ IV for instance, that's the only thing that will make the game almost perfect for me. Of course more tech, resources, more random events/quests, diplomatic options won't "hurt"
P.S: I hope the "rumours" about a new expansion will be true and we'll get a new expansion this year. Every civ had two expansions ? I'm not familiar with this.
Civ I had no expansions, Civ II had two scenario packs that didn't add to the core gameplay, but III and IV each had two expansions.
The thing to do, as in the real world back in the day, is to build up your defences (i.e. military) enough so that an uncalled for and unnecessary war isn't an option for the AI. It's as simple as that. If I don't want to go to war, I will build up my military.Originally Posted by Keloo
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" If you wish for peace, prepare for war.
Civ 3's expansion pack and Civ 4's expansion pack were also released 1 year after the previous one (Conquest released in 2003, PTW in 2002. Beyond the Sword released in July 2007, Warlods released in July 2006.
Gods & Kings released almost 2 years after the sub-par civ5 release - 2 years is a loooong time in PC gaming. I don't know what's holding the DLC back, but I'm pretty sure they didn't spend 2 years developing Gods & Kings. 1 year between expansions is already a long time... for me.
Uhh, all the DLC was released before G+K, so yeah, they probably didn't develop 2 years on that. But also on the patches and the other DLC that was released.
A new civ doesn't require any coding, a new map doesn't require any coding - so I guess the programmers just... what?
Sorry, what? A new civ doesn't require coding? Pray tell, how does Attila get in the game then? Magic?
That's definitely true in Civ.
Apart from the way the new civs mostly shipped with behaviours that weren't possible until the patch that accompanied the DLC - clearly added for the benefit of the DLC.
The scenarios certainly require coding.
I'd like to be able to see relationship status/economic info in all trade screens. Nothing worse than hitting "end turn" and a trade opportunity comes up without any information. Should I friend this guy or not? Who will I piss off if I do? Is that my last resource or not? I have 2 spice now but is one from a CS at 62 and about to lose alliance?
Ridiculous. Can't make those kinds of decisions without information, and if you pass that opportunity (especially one where they're offering gold) it might not be available when your turn starts.
I guess you haven't tried adding a modded civ thenThe only REAL work is in the art departement when it comes to adding a civ. I really can't in my wildest imagination see any programmers assigned to this kind of work. Anyway, I could be wrong, but I doubt it. More likely that they were assigned to XCOM.
SamBC is right about the scenarios though.
A bit offtopic though, so I'm not going to argue just for the sake of arguing, about a pointless cause and effect situation related to the gap in major content releases. Let's call it magic
I'm super excited for this. I'm hoping for them to finally make a true start location. (Though there are several decent mods out there.) I'm also excited to see how some of the policies are going to be affected. If they add corporations, it'll be interesting to see how they combine that with espionage. (And if they aren't thinking of combining it, they should. Assuming they add corporations.)
From someone who plays a lot of mp, if they let you use earth as a multiplayer map, that'd be great. I don't know why you can't...
New civs? New civs. I'm thinking it'll be about more modern civs since the whole theme is globalization. (Or at least I think it is) so I doubt we'll see many (if any) pre-christ civs. Probably Portugal, Zulu, maybe a slavic country? Hungary? (Though they added Austria. I'm just throwing stuff out, because I mean heck, they added sweden, everything's on the table right?) Poland? Majaphit?
I guess you haven't tried adding a modded civ whose ability doesn't use one of the pre-existing XML tags. Yes, there's coding, perhaps even a lot of it. Every DLC was accompanied with a patch that added the new abilities to the DLL (because they had to code these abilities after vanilla).I guess you haven't tried adding a modded civ then
It's a game so realism needs to take a back seat to gameplay (e.g. fun). In this case, I have no problem making all the leaders unpredictable, in fact, this makes it more fun. However, there should be leaders who are mostly peaceful (e.g. Gandhi) and will only attack unprovoked rarely or if you're a warmonger they will team up with another Civ to beat you down to preserve peace. In another case, you could have Monty who will perhaps attack most of the time but also be a few games where he may be peaceful or be a great friend as long as you help him kill everyone else.
Is it realistic to have friendly relations throughout history of course not but this is a game. It is more fun to have a friend throughout the game that you build a strong empires together if you were so inclined and perhaps fight and win against a common greater foe. This makes for a memorable game.
As Civ V stands now, every game is the same. You start with a few friends, try to nurture that, then for whatever reason, they attack you. Rinse and repeat. No game has a story as they evolve more or less the same.
If someone was describing a game and they said (1) you build a empire, make a friend, they backstab you, and you crush them, make another friend, they backstab you, etc, and win or (2) you start an empire, make a friend, support each other against a larger aggressor and beat them together, perhaps form an alliance to make your social policy/religion dominant across the world via war, etc. I'd take the second.
Additionally, you develop a emotional connection with your friend so that backstabbing him at somepoint in #2 will make more of an impact than in scenario 1. That emotional impact makes for a more engrossing game.
Finally, they'll be the people with the opinion that it's better to have the computer players play to win thus they always play like a human (i.e. backstab, do anything to win). But this makes the entire diplomacy concept useless as the agreements and friendships are meaningless because they're not worth the effort because the end result will be the same - backstab. Also, the reason I don't play against a human player is because I don't want that experience, I want a role play experience where I create the story and it will really play out differently depending on my actions. If I'm peaceful and try to be Gandhi's friend perhaps he'll respond in kind and we'll form an empire together that Monty or Bismark can't touch. If I want to backstab my buddy later, I'll do so with more thought than in the current system as Gandhi would have done it to me anyway.
I've had many games where my neighbouring civs never attacked and were always friendly. Few of these games included people like Genghis Khan or Bismarck who usually attack. I managed to keep them friendly by not signing DOF with their enemies, did not attack city states under their protection and kept my military and scientific progress on par with theirs. I think maintaining a strong military is key if you want peaceful games and to me that sounds right both in gaming terms and realism.
I'm probably one of the few people who doesn't have a big problem with the diplomacy in place. I have had friends for the entire game. I have had games in which one Civ attacked me early on and then no one did for the rest of the game (=boring). I don't find every game is the same at all. That's why I still play A LOT.
There is still room for improvement, though. What I'm hoping for in the expansion is an over-haul on economy. Having international trade routes would do a lot for diplomacy.
What I'm hoping for:
- new victory type: hopefully an Economic Victory
- colonies: basically a puppet state that you can build from mid-game onward
- international trade routes and more diplomatic options surrounding this such as trade embargoes
- late game freshness: corporations and/or other civil buildings and projects that actually have a meaningful effect on the game.
- an overhaul of the revolt mechanic that makes them more likely to happen in puppet states and occupied territories.
- random events and/or quests from your own cities that go beyond the quests for luxuries
What I really hope for though, is that the development team has come up with something brilliant that will surprise me. I'm still impressed with what they did with religion. Religion is both as meaningful and as irrelevant as you make it in the game. If they can pull that off again with a new feature, I'll be very happy.
I agree with the above completely. I'd also suggest a possible religious victory option. Perhaps this could involve converting each Civ capitol (capital? - I forget and am too tired to look it up - sorry) to your state religion.
For an economic victory condition, maybe this could involve obtaining one of every resource type in the game and maintaining the control for a certain period (10 turns).
What we always have to keep in mind with new victory conditions is can the computer players be programmed to actually "know" how to try play them effectively. Right now, the computer players are actually pretty good at working towards the various winning conditions.
Firaxis must have been under pressure these days. the rumor has been spreading in many video game websites like a wild fire. its either they confirm it or be silent forever.
I wonder if they'd (Firaxis) would be convinced if I said I'd sleep much easier knowing that an expansion is on the way? They seem pretty hard to convince, but I suppose if we all begged they may bend a little.Firaxis must have been under pressure these days. the rumor has been spreading in many video game websites like a wild fire. its either they confirm it or be silent forever.
You're welcomeFiraxis must have been under pressure these days. the rumor has been spreading in many video game websites like a wild fire. its either they confirm it or be silent forever.
Anyone willing to wager on the announcement date? There's five invisidollars over at CFC for Thursday 17 January
I think it's more likely this upcoming Tuesday (Monday for America).
I bet the date will be Valentine's Day on Thursday, the 14th of February.
Gods & Kings was announced on Thursday, the 16th of February 2012. So it would be almost exactly a year later... Though we would have to wait nearly a month to hear about it.
I'm going to say announcement this spring, i.e. up to and including the 20th June, and a release in summer (up to and including 20th September)
I don't know why they just come clean. It's all over these and CFC's forums not to mention all over most gaming sites. Them staying silent just doesn't make any sense. Fess up, deal with it, and open your mouth to let us know because we already do.
They aren't denying it, they are just going to respond on their own terms. If you ran a business, you wouldn't alter all of your marketing plans just because people know slivers of information ahead of time.
Maybe this was part of their plan? Someone put it in the database, so maybe it was deliberate? Think about how much extra attention they could potentially get...And thus more sales. (Couldn't help it but put out there a conspiracy theory, lol)
I really hope that the announcement is not scheduled for the spring, as we've seen that 2k/Firaxis aren't too much aware of the seasons :P .I'm going to say announcement this spring, i.e. up to and including the 20th June, and a release in summer (up to and including 20th September)
Otherwise, "One World" could imply almost anything. I expect/hope for any/all of the following additions to the game:
-Corporations (the title could refer to that: corporations -> globalism -> "one world")
-New Victory Conditions, as in Religious and Economic Victories (for the latter, the link with the "OW" is as explained above, as for the religious victory, achieving a ideological hegemony around the globe will result in a "One World")
-International Trade (which will bring the different "worlds" closer to each other and make them eventually "one")
-Environmental Awareness and additions to the Future Era (the futuristic techs bringing humanity together and also reflecting the vision that we all share a small planet that we have to try to keep).
-National division, ethnogenesis, irredentism, colonies and vassals (some of this might seem as quite the opposite to what "One World" might be, but one could find a way to justify the inclusion of these. And besides, this is what I'm mostly hoping for :P )
Sounds very interesting, have been hoping for another expansion for CiV 5 for a while now to be honest.
As for the title. Sounds curious, gives me impressions of something more about the later eras and possibly something towards World Domination ? Greater empires, police states ?
I dunno :P But hoping we get some more info on this soon.
Any ideas about whether an expansion would require G&K or not? What are the trends these days regarding that? It would be good if the expansions were progressive, but I could see an argument for making them independent of each other.
In my experience, 2K don't let much change their schedule, and they seem to have categorised this as a 'rumour', which they never comment on.
And I'll say you're dead wrong. For the past 5 expansion packs for both Civ 3, 4 AND 5, they have all been released in July.I'm going to say announcement this spring, i.e. up to and including the 20th June, and a release in summer (up to and including 20th September)
July is in summer dude.
You said up to September, so you made it sound that it would be released a lot later than July.. dude...
Merely stating how long summer is. It's a sort of in-joke because our antipodean friends don't know when summer actually is.
'Up to...' as in 'Up to 90% off' doesn't mean a thing.
You know, actually, God and Kings was released in June, so it's the end of the Spring that we'll be getting One World.
OK man, you keep that thought. Good luck.
Also, here in Europe, G&K was released in summer, so we're in the same boat there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote