Author Topic: Intro?  (Read 1878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maou Tsaou (OP)

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 7
Intro?
« on: April 30, 2012, 06:16:59 PM »
Some thoughts on my recent purchase of Civ V that helped drive me to Aurora. . .


Okay, so I'm one of those old farts that have been playing Civilization since about a decade before Civ I came out.
Needless to say that Civilization 1 was not what I was expecting but I got over that really quickly.
Civilization II was. . .  well, I guess you just had to be there.
Ever since the Civ II era I've met each new iteration of the series with growing trepidation and each new game, or major expansion, took a bit longer than the last to “grow on me”.
I don't mean to imply I'm some kind of expert as I've never gotten massive scores, beat deity difficulty, or played much multi-player, but I have played through the scenarios and mods quite a bit and I've been using Civilization as a kind of campaign manager for other smaller scale games like war-games and RPG's since Civ II which has me messing with all the older versions from time to time, depending on which flavor best fits what I'm trying to do.
Up until about a year or so ago I was mostly able to do some semblance of what I wanted using the editing tools that exist but the more I tinkered with things the more I started thinking about mod ideas of my own until I finally grabbed Python and started reading a few tutorials.
I had already put off Civ V for some time owing to my machine coming closer to the minimum requirements rather than the recommended.
In the interim I picked up Civilization Revolutions on my i-touch (that I need reading glasses to see further reenforcing my crotchity old manizm) and even bothered with whatever that CivWorld thing is over on the Faebookakie.
I finally got to Civ V a couple of weeks ago after upgrading my primary machine a couple of months ago.
So. . .  yeah.
After some technical issues including a return to the old 'blue screen of death' days I managed a few starts.
I was having a hard time liking this one.
Still, I had said this before and had not even finished a game yet so I messed around some more and ended up winning a couple of times by reverting to a Civ III like strategy.
There were a couple of interesting bits, and some oddness as well, but overall I just wasn't digging it.
With the others there was always something niggiling at me to try something else next game, but I wasn't getting that with the vanilla Civilization V.
This really bothered me.
At this point in my experience I'm usually hooked, either just loving the thing or cursing it while trying to learn the new approaches, but with Civ V I was finding myself getting up for a cup of coffee and getting wrapped up with chores in the kitchen for an hour or so before remembering the game was still running.
Was it the game, or was it me?
After putting it aside for a few days I decided to look back at my roots for an answer.
Way back in the day, before all these new fangled computer-thingies, we used to have to play our games on tabletops with components and real people together in a room in somebody's cave.
I already mentioned that we played a board-game called Civilization by the flickering light of our smoky fires.
Another game that came out about the same time during the stone age was called Titan.
Titan was interesting in that it used stacks of units moving over tiles on a main-board.
A major part of the strategy involved when to split stacks.
When stacks engaged then the combat was shifted to a smaller-scaled board that represented the terrain of the tile the combat was occurring in basically making combats something of a mini-game or second game within the larger strategic board and movement.
What Civ V does with the one unit per tile concept is effectively what Titan did with combat, it solves the stack issues by a drop in scale that deploys each unit in the stack to individual tiles.
But Civ V fails to swap maps/scales between strategic movement and tactical combat and tries to play both games on a single map.
I realize that the scale of a given tile has always been abstract for flexibility purposes but Civ V abuses that flexibility to the point of breaking suspension of disbelief for me.
It seems the world record for an arrow flight is just under 500m.
That's not clout shooting for any kind of accuracy, just simple distance.
In one of the smaller-scale scenarios in Civ IV, the American Revolution, a tile works out to something roughly over 40 miles across.
At about 1600 meters per mile Civilization V can't slap down enough hexes to handle the American Revolution with just 128 by 80 tiles available max.
At 250 meters across a tile, allowing a max bow shot of 500m, 128 tiles is only 20 miles, half the distance across an American Revolution tile in Civ IV (80 tiles is 12. 5 miles).
This gets much worse if one breaks things down to “effective range” rather than world record distance shots.
This alone is sufficient to break Civ V as any kind of 'campaign manager' like I use previous Civ's for.
One unit per tile, missile fire ranges, zoc's. . .  it all implies MUCH smaller scales than I need to handle entire planets.
A return of religion and espionage can't fix that.
I'd be interested if I can use Civ V for smaller-scale tactical maps but the little I've looked at the SDK makes me think that dropping units from the almost unlimited combos available under Civ IV onto a Civ V map may be more trouble than it'd be worth.
 

Offline xeryon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 581
Re: Intro?
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2012, 08:09:10 PM »
It isn't you.  The game has been massively dumbed-down and prettified.  The one unit per tile was an improvement for strategy but has some huge holes in the execution (as you so noted)

As a long time MASSIVE fan of the Civ series, alas my Civ days started at Civ 1 when we had already invented the light bulb, I was extremely disappointed with Civ V as well.  Civ 1 was great for it's time in regards to 4x style game play.  Civ 2 vastly improved the complexity.  Civ 3 added several new mechanics that were very thoughtful but completely destroyed the limited AI complexity of Civ 2.  I essentially jumped from Civ 2 to Civ 4 when it comes to time spent playing the game.  Civ 4, once it received a couple expansions, was a delightful 4x game worthy of absurd amounts of my time.  I awaited and counted down the days till Civ 5 was launched and immediately bought it via steam.  Once installed I fired it up and logged a grand total of 5 hours before being entirely bored out of my skull. 

A search for a quality 4x game was also what brought me to Aurora.  I believe my Google search term used was "best 4x game". 
 

Offline Maou Tsaou (OP)

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • M
  • Posts: 7
Re: Intro?
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2012, 02:53:02 PM »
Ola.

Not trying to drag out an off topic thread but I still need a few posts before I can start threads in all topics I think and I've got a bug to report but can't start a thread there yet so I'm knocking out a few more posts.
Ergo I'll mention that the Conquests expansion scenarios are really worth a look for Civ III if you haven't seen them yet.
Good to know it's not just me.
 

Offline Tregonsee

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
Re: Intro?
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2012, 03:19:26 PM »
A combo of Civ and Aurora would be Galactic Civilizations I and Galactic Civilizations 2...  I like 1 better than 2.  Of course, the greatest feeling in Civ II is when your Warriors turn into Musketmen all throughout the game due to Leonardo's Workshop...
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Silver Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Intro?
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2012, 03:51:02 PM »
Ola.

Not trying to drag out an off topic thread but I still need a few posts before I can start threads in all topics I think and I've got a bug to report but can't start a thread there yet so I'm knocking out a few more posts.
Ergo I'll mention that the Conquests expansion scenarios are really worth a look for Civ III if you haven't seen them yet.
Good to know it's not just me.

Hm, bugs should be reported in the official bug thread (according to the version you play). You might want to post your bug in the Academy first, to make sure it realy _is_ a bug (look for a threat that halfway fits).
The thing is, Steve checks the official bug threats from time to time, but will probably overlook/forget about your report, as it moves further down.
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5657
  • Thanked: 372 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Intro?
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2012, 03:51:58 PM »
Ola.

Not trying to drag out an off topic thread but I still need a few posts before I can start threads in all topics I think and I've got a bug to report but can't start a thread there yet so I'm knocking out a few more posts.
Ergo I'll mention that the Conquests expansion scenarios are really worth a look for Civ III if you haven't seen them yet.
Good to know it's not just me.

Bug reports should go in the thread for the version they are in, rather than a new one. This helps Steve keep track of them. That is why starting new threads is disabled for all but mods/admins.
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Intro?
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2012, 10:32:04 PM »
Bug reports should go in the thread for the version they are in, rather than a new one. This helps Steve keep track of them. That is why starting new threads is disabled for all but mods/admins.

To be clear: starting new threads in Bugs is disabled for ....  I'm pretty sure you should be able to start a new thread in The Academy (as Hawkeye suggested).

Have Fun!
John
 

Offline dizzyelk

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • d
  • Posts: 4
Re: Intro?
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2012, 12:27:48 AM »
I started playing Civ with Civ II.  I instantly fell in love with the genre.  Played all the civs from there on.  Agree that 3 wasn't very good, but that was growing pains, love 4 with all my blackened heart.  And 5 is. . .  I like to think that some expansion packs will help it along, and keep telling myself that, but I do find myself playing far more 4.  I'd like to see the game have the setup that Master of Orion and Master of Magic did, where you had an overland map, with limits to the number of units per tile, and a zoomed in tactical combat map where you move the individual units and duke it out.  I do wish I could tell my siege engines to attack without taking damage in 4, but I handwave the dead units as logistical arrangements with ammo, cause we need special hand-smoothed boulders in my catapults for accuracy.  Yeah. . .  accuracy. . .  that makes sense, right?
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Intro?
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2012, 12:17:19 AM »
Civ was great when it was first out so long ago, but it never in my opinion lead to where I wanted, in depth and complexity.

I would of love to seen a true civilization simulator, not a game.

Aurora is akin to space civilization simulator, it is not a game. There is a lack of depth in most games, which for me is the fun. Depth does not have to be inaccessible, but to much handwavium spoils the broth for my liking. I have come to the conclusion most the world prefers not to think as it hurt them, which would explain the state of this planet as it is now.

 

Offline ollobrains

  • Commander
  • *********
  • o
  • Posts: 380
Re: Intro?
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2012, 03:36:15 AM »
aurora along with new features if steve wants to do it a more streamlined and perhaps a more UI AI assisted for those that want to focus on certain gameplay aspects or leave it for those that dont.  And want to play it deeper

A game that does come to mind that allows u indepth control over everything or leave it to a pretty respectible AI control and allow u the options over each game aspect
Distant worlds
and space empire V the programmers there did a good job on an AI that could do it for u