|
MrChupon posted:
Basically, Randomness in strategic games (like Civ) is generally bad as it devalues skill in favor of luck. Agricola is largely not all that random in comparison to other games like Munchkin or Arkham Horror or even Catan (which at base is mediocre) as it's highly unlikely that the random elements in the game can really affect your chances of winning in comparison to the deterministic elements. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Jun 10, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Random events can enhance the strategy but only if done well. They can encourage players to find ways to manipulate probabilities in their favour, or make contingency plans, or just challenge them to cope with a new unexpected situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
On the other hand, they can also give more life to things and shake things up, which can also be important. In a game that is 'solvable' to the extent that Civ can be, everything optimal. Every 10 turns draw an Event card. "Ooh, a free unit!" "Ohh, a little science." "Blast, Barracks is gone!" "Oh crap, Barb spawn, I think I'm out this run." "Shame....Wait, what would it take for you to live?" "You offering?" "Maybe..." And so on. It can suck. It can be good. Of course, this all falls flat with AIs that you can't talk with and are always getting boosts in addition. It just occurs to me how much of Civ5 is 'end turn'. Is that good in a board game? To just pass turn after pass turn, because there's nothing you need?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Devaluing skill in favor of luck helps less skilled players, and that's something you can take advantage of. Using random events to punish the player in the lead and help the player in last is one way, although people are kind of leery of blue-shell mechanics these days. Another way you could do it is make good events more likely at lower difficulty levels, bad events more likely at higher difficulty levels. All that being said, most random event systems are poorly designed, because there's no interesting decision to be made. 'How am I going to fix this city that just got blowed up by a volcano' and 'What should I do with this pile of money out of nowhere' aren't really very interesting decisions. Paradox style events are like the bare minimum standard of game design quality they should have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Chucat posted:
I think that's more an argument against random events that can destroy a civilisation rather than an argument against random events in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
I would love if random events were implemented into a mechanic that actually made it interesting to interact with. Like a deck of cards that you got to pick from if you so wanted, and it's contents were affected by your current situation. For example, if you just discovered a new city state you could see the game shuffling a card that gave you a bonus with it if you draw it, or if you go into war with another civ it shuffles in some sabotage cards etc. Maybe it can be a way for players who feel they have nothing to lose to just go through five or so cards in one turn and hope that hey get several good things. Anything but the lovely ininspired system that Civ 4 had.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Some of the good events were terrible too. +25% against archer units on ALL of your melee? For free? Completely randomly out of the blue? Hello game balance. But let's not forget the terrible quests 4 had: Build X amount of <something> before <very short time limit>. Settle near the holy mountain, with no indication of where it is. Oh and if someone else borders it you fail but you won't be notified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
I hope they take some lessons from V and do a better job balancing the game so that more strategies are viable, especially on higher difficulties. Brave New World actually put the final nail in the coffin of 'going wide' and the happiness system, as designed, forces a very particular game style based on era and available techs. 4x games are supposed to create a tension between things like building a military vs infrastructure, wide/tall, science/gold/production, but one of the key decisions, wide vs tall, has no decision, you build 4-6 cities until the industrial era or your empire is garbage. Global happiness was an interesting concept, but the implementation caused a ton of underlying problems that were never properly addressed. There were actually a lot of flawed designs, from the obtuse diplomacy system, to the frankly obnoxious active trade route system, which was so bad it almost broke two games (BE needed to be completely rebalanced due to how powerful trading was). While I enjoyed the original and all the expansions, this is the first Civ game where I felt an expansion actually hurt the core game. It felt like a lot of the decisions were made to stop certain exploitative ways of playing via hard to circumvent restrictions like happiness, but the unintended result was actually less options available to the player. People argued all through vanilla and the first expansion about whether Tradition or Liberty were stronger. By the time BNW rolled around, Tradition was simply the best, and practically only option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Random events can enhance the strategy but only if done well. They can encourage players to find ways to manipulate probabilities in their favour, or make contingency plans, or just challenge them to cope with a new unexpected situation. Yeah. For example, Colt Express has random turn lengths and random events on every turn. But it works because the players learn what the turn length and event are at the beginning of the turn, and the event only occurs at the very end of the turn. So the players can plan their entire turn around the turn length and event. On the other hand, random events often end up like Betrayal at the House on the Hill, where there's a good chance one side should GG the moment after the haunt is drawn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:There were actually a lot of flawed designs, from the obtuse diplomacy system, to the frankly obnoxious active trade route system, which was so bad it almost broke two games (BE needed to be completely rebalanced due to how powerful trading was). Can you elaborate on the flaws of the trade route system, as you see it? Its implementation in V seemed fine to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Can you elaborate on the flaws of the trade route system, as you see it? Its implementation in V seemed fine to me. The only flaw I can see is that its so effective that they had to rebalance the game around it and still after that gold was never a problem anymore. Other than that, is a pretty fine system, much better than anything any Civ did before in that department. I dont think there's anything too obtuse about the diplomacy either. Maybe it lacks some options (map trading, tech trading, real alliances), but the main problem is that the AI is too much of an rear end in a top hat to use it properly. I mean, is useless to have loads of trading and deal options when the main concern for any AI leader is to gently caress the player Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
I didn't see a Civ V thread, so I figured I'd ask this here. Why the hell is my nation always getting stuck in these godawful starting positions? It's not that good places to settle don't exist, they most definitely do, but whenever I start, I end up stuck right in the middle of tundra, desert, or jungle with nothing around. Maybe it's something to do with the custom nations I'm using? I'll try turning off start bias and see if that makes a change because goddamn, tundra starts suuuuuuck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Sperglord Firecock posted:I didn't see a Civ V thread, so I figured I'd ask this here. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3558848 Depends on what civ you're using.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Sometimes start locations are better than they appear because some resources are hidden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Sometimes start locations are better than they appear because some resources are hidden. gently caress Uranium, where is my salt, game??? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
I hate to be a broken record but I think endless legend did trading best. Roads and trade is automatic based on your diplomatic status. You had to research and build infrastructure so you were involved but you didn't have to continuously redo trade routes all day long.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Can you elaborate on the flaws of the trade route system, as you see it? Its implementation in V seemed fine to me. Well, gold was originally tied to city location (near rivers, near ocean, containing luxuries) and empire distance, with cities further apart being both harder to connect, and more expensive in upkeep. Then they added trade routes, and instead of having to carefully plan cities, you have abundant gold with maxed trade routes, or incredible debt without it. That's less a decision than it is an obligation. This is without pointing out what a nuisance trade routes become in the late game when you have 7-9 of them, have to manage them every 30 turns, but with the exception of managing internal city growth always just send them to the most profitable location. So they eventually become another obnoxious piece of busy work for large empires. They essentially removed an entire area of strategic depth with a powerful but boring and strategically bankrupt trading system. It is one of several reasons I consider BNW a step back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I hate to be a broken record but I think endless legend did trading best. Roads and trade is automatic based on your diplomatic status. You had to research and build infrastructure so you were involved but you didn't have to continuously redo trade routes all day long. That's because they were severely underutilized as a concept. You just picked the most profitable ones, maybe choose the one with the most science if they were closely valued. It's a shame, because they would have been a great mechanic for culture wars. They kinda figured it themselves with the religious influence, but these bonuses were so measly that didn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:Sometimes start locations are better than they appear because some resources are hidden. Also sometimes the game just sticks you somewhere because it's trying to give all civs room. Try lowering the amount of water or using a bigger map size.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I hate to be a broken record but I think endless legend did trading best. Roads and trade is automatic based on your diplomatic status. You had to research and build infrastructure so you were involved but you didn't have to continuously redo trade routes all day long. I'm hoping Civ VI has the same thing as in Beyond Earth to autorenew a route, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Just curious. What is the general consensus of which game in the series is the best?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Just curious. What is the general consensus of which game in the series is the best? The flame wars on this subject have consumed many, many hours. Basically, pick one of Civ 2, 3, 4, or 5 - or Alpha Centauri. I'm the lunatic who says Beyond Earth is my favorite entry in the series. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Just curious. What is the general consensus of which game in the series is the best? 4 is the most perfect version of civs 1-4 5 is a different beast altogether and significant portion of people prefer it. Arguably, 5 isn't as well put together as 4, but I like some of the directions it leans in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:4 is the most perfect version of civs 1-4 How does 5 different from "Classic" Civilization?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:How does 5 different from "Classic" Civilization? Only one unit per tile, hex grid, simplified income (no commerce, healthiness, unhealthiness, or corruption), simplified government system. Those are the big ones. More generally, Civ4 has a ton of systems that tightly interlock; Civ5 has a smaller number of systems that are mostly fairly independent. Civ5 is also less well balanced and its AI is incompetent, but there's hope that that's just because this is the first iteration of a "new series" and it takes time to get these things right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Kassad posted:I'm hoping Civ VI has the same thing as in Beyond Earth to autorenew a route, at least. I'm hoping Civ 6 has Civ 1's trade system. "Automatically get some money for being friends with your neighbours" is pretty much all a trade system needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The flame wars on this subject have consumed many, many hours. Basically, pick one of Civ 2, 3, 4, or 5 - or Alpha Centauri. I would have respected you more if you had said Civ Revolutions. 4 was widely heralded as the best game in the series when it came out, it is simply a much better game than 1-3. 5 brought a lot of design and especially interface improvements, and made civilization and leader choices much more meaningful, but is less strategically rich. Marketing New Brain fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
I think Civ 1 is very underrated even today, and still play it from time to time. There's something to be said for its elegance relative to the ultra-complex Civ 4. edit re: the post below me: Doing caravans the way BNW does them and not including the obvious feature to attach a military escort to them was dumb as hell and suggests the designers didn't think their systems through at all, and didn't give a poo poo when many players pointed out this obvious missing feature after BNW was released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Can you elaborate on the flaws of the trade route system, as you see it? Its implementation in V seemed fine to me. My biggest problem with it is that the trade caravans are actual units on the game board, but nothing they do has any impact on the trade route itself. They move back and forth between cities, but you get the benefit of the trade route each turn so their position doesn't matter at all. But if the caravan gets attacked by barbarians, you completely lose the trade route and have to rebuild it from scratch. And there's no easy way to protect your caravans either. Another big flaw is that using caravans for internal food trade routes is a million times better than external gold trade routes. But that's more of a flaw with the game's emphasis on tallness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Basically, Randomness in strategic games (like Civ) is generally bad as it devalues skill in favor of luck. Agricola is largely not all that random in comparison to other games like Munchkin or Arkham Horror or even Catan (which at base is mediocre) as it's highly unlikely that the random elements in the game can really affect your chances of winning in comparison to the deterministic elements. Without getting too far offtopic (Agricola can break all the time due to poorly balanced random Occupation/Minor Improvement cards, to the point where skilled players routinely ban OP cards/house rule/draft instead of playing by the game rules), I completely respect what you have to say there, but my counter is this: Is Civilization really a (strategic) board game in the year 2016? I've been playing since Civ 1 in 1991, and I was probably more enamored with that game than any other PC game as a kid because it was essentially a massive strategic boardgame where the computer did all of the busywork of fiddling with counters and dice rolls. Sure, the computer cheated like hell to play competently (as it has in all Civs), but ultimately you all had the same victory conditions. 25 years later (god drat), the series has been refined a lot, and I still love it, but so much of what's been added makes 10x more sense in a Simulation or a role-playing game than in a strategy boardgame. I mean, everyone in this thread has seen that big rear end chart of Civ5 trait numbers that give the AI civs their personalities/flavor. How can you argue from a position of it being a strategic board game if half the players aren't trying to win, or are obsessed with religion/nukes/boats to their own detriment? Imagine the conniptions in TradGames if the Agricola app included high-poly leaderheards like 'Mr. Farmyard' who focused on trying to win by animals no matter what the board situation or his own hand of cards. Would you get any satisfaction from beating such a gimped AI? I guess this is a very wordy way of saying that once you've committed to your strategy game being an amusement park where all of the other players aren't really in it to win but to play a role for your amusement, then random events are just another way of adding flavor to the story, so you can talk about the time the meteors struck down Shaka's troops, saving your poorly defended city, in a game he was going to get anywhere in anyway because he's not actually trying to win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
The AI civs in Civ 1 definitely weren't trying to win either. Their programming was much more simple (just a sliding 1-3 scale in 3 categories: Peaceful-Aggressive, Civilized-Militaristic, Perfectionist-Expansionist) but Civ 5's AI personality setup, while much more complex, more closely mimics Civ 1's than any of the intervening games do. Ironically, the complexity of Civ 5's personalities combined with the nonexistent diplomacy make AI civs MORE samey than they were in Civ 1. ("Trying to win" basically means "goes out of their way to gang up on whoever the leader is", which is what humans do. IMO singleplayer Civ is better if the AI civs don't do that and roleplay their personalities instead.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Another big flaw is that using caravans for internal food trade routes is a million times better than external gold trade routes. But that's more of a flaw with the game's emphasis on tallness. What? I dont think I ever used an internal trade route. To me they were always essential to having a lot of gold to keep a large military and buy buildings to speed up new cities
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Internal trade routes produce magic food out of thin air for your capital and food is science and science is The Only Thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:I would have respected you more if you had said Civ Revolutions. Civ Rev actually had quite a few features I liked and would like to see ported to other Civ games: 1. Your ships come with a free rubbish scout unit you can disembark to get that ancient ruin you saw 2. You can build roads instantly with money 3. Civs have a unique bonus every era so you get the English who have Monarchy from game start, longbowmen in the ancient era, better ships in the medieval era, better mines, Lancaster bombers and Spitfires in the industrial era, and more ships in the modern era. 4. You get ancient ruin-like bonuses for clearing out barbarian camps 5. Spies make comedy sneaking music when they move
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Yeah, internal food routes are so useful that if you're playing Venice, you'll want to puppet a few city-states just so you can have them ferry more food to your ridiculous capital city. I seem to recall Venice can hit populations of, like, 50 if you play things right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Internal trade routes produce magic food out of thin air for your capital and food is science and science is The Only Thing hmm, I guess Ive been playing wrong then But I never even felt I needed this, anyway. I usually can keep ahead of the competition in science without it gaming the system so much. I usually play at "king" difficulty too, so there's that
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Yeah, internal food routes are so useful that if you're playing Venice, you'll want to puppet a few city-states just so you can have them ferry more food to your ridiculous capital city. I seem to recall Venice can hit populations of, like, 50 if you play things right. Yeah, it wouldn't be so valuable if population in your capital didn't generate half the unhappiness of population elsewhere while generating 50% more science, but Tradition and the National College exist so it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:How does 5 different from "Classic" Civilization? It's hard to describe and give you a real impression of it, but if you play both a lot, they feel very different. It's some core design choices the permeate through all the systems. To give some examples of differences Religion in Civ IV is pretty deterministic, you unlock religions at certain techs, all religions provide the same bonuses and their spread mostly impacts diplomatic power blocks Religion in Civ V is fairly fluid, you gain a religion through faith generation and select which bonuses your religion will provide, each religion mostly benefits whatever player founded it through little bonuses Trade Routes in Civ IV were automatically calculated and only provided commerce bonuses Trade Routes in Civ V were manually assigned via a special unit and could provide other bonuses in the way of faith spead, science or the movement of food or production between cities. Combat in Civ IV was usually done through stacks of units, a number of units moving as a group. The composition of the group usually determined the strength and weaknesses. Combat in Civ V was done through a field of units, moving individually. The terrain and movement of the the units played a large part in a battle's outcome Cities in Civ IV tended to specialize. You could have a decently large number of cities and the best thing to do with them was decide whether you wanted it to focus on commerce, science or production. Cities in Civ V didn't specialize a lot. You usually only had 3-5 cities, and the best thing to do with each of them was to grow them to their maximum potential Civics in Civ IV were unlocked by technology. You had 5 civics and switching between them would give your empire different benefits and drawbacks Civics in Civ V are gained with culture. Each civic is a bonus you add to collection. This is done through civic trees, each one has 6 civics in it and there's an additional bonus to having all the civics in one tree, but you can also mix and match if you want. There are others, like the global diplomacy and stuff, but it's take a while to list all of them
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Only one unit per tile, hex grid, simplified income (no commerce, healthiness, unhealthiness, or corruption), simplified government system. Those are the big ones. More generally, Civ4 has a ton of systems that tightly interlock; Civ5 has a smaller number of systems that are mostly fairly independent. It sounds like Civ5 is a dumbed down version of the previous games. MMM Whatchya Say posted:It's hard to describe and give you a real impression of it, but if you play both a lot, they feel very different. It's some core design choices the permeate through all the systems. This is great! Thank you! Elias_Maluco posted:What? I dont think I ever used an internal trade route. To me they were always essential to having a lot of gold to keep a large military and buy buildings to speed up new cities They're great if you found a new city in a desert or are running low on workers. TooMuchAbstraction posted:Yeah, internal food routes are so useful that if you're playing Venice, you'll want to puppet a few city-states just so you can have them ferry more food to your ridiculous capital city. I seem to recall Venice can hit populations of, like, 50 if you play things right. Some people have surpassed that. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:18
|
|