Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BurnedToast]

Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??

Because civ 5 is not an empire builder, it's a wargame. There's no meaningful diplomacy because the only purpose of diplomacy is appeasing people till you can build a big enough army to kill them. It's like asking why the total war series has bad diplomacy.

I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?

They've tried to fix this with the expansions, but the core of the game is just too focused on being a wargame to have meaningful diplomacy.

[Mr. Strange]

I did not realize I wanted that this badly.

You are (not) alone on this one.

[Mephansteras]

Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??

Because civ 5 is not an empire builder, it's a wargame. There's no meaningful diplomacy because the only purpose of diplomacy is appeasing people till you can build a big enough army to kill them. It's like asking why the total war series has bad diplomacy.

I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?

They've tried to fix this with the expansions, but the core of the game is just too focused on being a wargame to have meaningful diplomacy.

Considering that you have Scientific, Cultural, and Diplomatic victory conditions (and you've pretty much always had those) in addition to the Conquest victory, I really think the Civ series should move past the pure wargame mentality. It keeps trying, but never in a way that really gives much meaning to relationships with other nations.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Still no truly meaningful Diplomacy, though. Why can't Civ games ever have real diplomacy??

Because civ 5 is not an empire builder, it's a wargame. There's no meaningful diplomacy because the only purpose of diplomacy is appeasing people till you can build a big enough army to kill them. It's like asking why the total war series has bad diplomacy.

I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?

They've tried to fix this with the expansions, but the core of the game is just too focused on being a wargame to have meaningful diplomacy.

Considering that you have Scientific, Cultural, and Diplomatic victory conditions (and you've pretty much always had those) in addition to the Conquest victory, I really think the Civ series should move past the pure wargame mentality. It keeps trying, but never in a way that really gives much meaning to relationships with other nations.

honestly, the way theyre implemented they're just like "fuck you" victories. I turn them off every time I play.

[Anvilfolk]

You guys ought to try Galactic Civilizations II. It has really great diplomacy as far as I remember. I used to actively sell research so that other empires would like me. I'd use them as parts of deals to have two empires declare war on each other, while I remained in my corner, built up my planets, researched and expanded my influence by constructing border stations and other more subversive means.

Unfortunately the combat/shipbuilding aspects are pretty lame. Combat is a shields of colour X protect against damage of color X, and there's three colours. That's it. Shipbuilding is essentially aesthetic, and you have to remake all your ships every time you get an upgrade.

It's still pretty amazing. I think you missed a huge discount on Steam by a day though :\

[IronyOwl]

I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?

All of them, I would tend to think. Otherwise it turns into less of an empire builder and more of a land amasser. Similar concepts with levels in RPGs, army sizes in RTSs, clearing levels in puzzle games...

Punishing having more X can be a sign that the game's centered on X as easily as it can be a sign that the game's not really supposed to be about X.

honestly, the way theyre implemented they're just like "fuck you" victories. I turn them off every time I play.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'll admit I don't really pay much attention to victory conditions, though. For me, Civ games are games that are firmly about the journey, not the destination. I don't typically get the urge to "win" that's distinct from the urge to stop playing.

[HopFlash]

if there will be a b12-Multiplayer with both expansions I'm in I think.

I could never really try out MP with Civ and it would be nice to try.

How exactly is it organized? PBEM with a central server?

[BurnedToast]

I know it seems like that's wrong, but think about it - what kind of empire builder actually punishes you for building a bigger empire?

All of them, I would tend to think. Otherwise it turns into less of an empire builder and more of a land amasser. Similar concepts with levels in RPGs, army sizes in RTSs, clearing levels in puzzle games...

Punishing having more X can be a sign that the game's centered on X as easily as it can be a sign that the game's not really supposed to be about X.

Really? because I can't think of any offhand. Sure there might be some cost associated with grabbing land so you can't just gobble it all up at once... but you pretty much want to grab everything you can at some point, and the reason you attack the enemy is to gobble up his land too.

Not so with civ 5. You want maybe 3 - 5 cities (depending on map size, etc) and you attack the enemy to kill him and burn down his cities because adding them to your empire makes you weaker, not stronger.

[umiman]

Then everyone declares war on you because you are now a "major warmonger" for razing a city.

[IronyOwl]

Really? because I can't think of any offhand. Sure there might be some cost associated with grabbing land so you can't just gobble it all up at once... but you pretty much want to grab everything you can at some point, and the reason you attack the enemy is to gobble up his land too.

Not so with civ 5. You want maybe 3 - 5 cities (depending on map size, etc) and you attack the enemy to kill him and burn down his cities because adding them to your empire makes you weaker, not stronger.

"Gobble up as much land as you can as fast as you can, within financial constraints for speed" sounds more like a wargame than an empire builder to me. Certainly it sounds like RTSs and a lot of military-focused TBSs I'm familiar with, with resource nodes replacing raw land in the RTS case.

I will admit, though, that my empire-building experience is mostly limited to the Civ games and more military-minded TBSs, like Warlock or Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic. I can't actually think of a proper, non-military empire builder outside the Civs and Alpha Centauri.

That said, if limiting empire size is a sign of being a wargame, I'm curious what not limiting empire size is a sign of. I'd associate it with RTSs, like Starcraft II, or more military-minded or at least less sophisticated and macro-balanced TBSs like Master of Magic or the Warlords series.

you attack the enemy to kill him and burn down his cities because adding them to your empire makes you weaker, not stronger.

Plus, this in particular. If attacking someone lets you gobble up his cities to strengthen your empire, it's obvious why you'd attack him- and it seems like combat is a major or at least very attractive part of that game. If it doesn't and the only point is to burn his stuff to the ground should you so choose... well, that sounds like a game where either the whole point is to defeat everyone around you, or a game where attacking other players isn't the focus, and maybe not even a particularly good idea.

[HopFlash]

if you don't deactivate the diverse victory conditions then something like a culture victory can better be accomplished if you stay at peace and have fewer cities I think.

Sure you have to build up a little army to defend but with some tactical positions bigger empires can find piercing you a hard nut to crack.

War is like in the real world one common part of indifferents in diplomacy...but in Civ its far away from nearly every RTS where fighting is the whole core of gameplay.

And don't forget you can have puppet cities after conquering cities instead of razing them. (Venice can't have other cities if I remember right)

[Muz]

Civ 5 BNW really fixed a lot of diplomacy issues. The warmonger thing and the cultural victory system makes diplomacy extremely important. Heck, diplomacy is really important if you go for a conquest victory.

I played Venice recently, managed to keep neighboring Rome as a backwards city-state. For some reason everyone hated Rome and kept attacking them. With a defensive pact with Rome, I manage to liberate Rome every time, clearing up my warmonger penalties. And despite having a very militaristic build, I got a cultural victory. You kinda need some conquests for a cultural victory. Partly to keep certain people from getting culturally too advanced, partly to grab some wonders.

And don't forget you can have puppet cities after conquering cities instead of razing them. (Venice can't have other cities if I remember right)

Puppet cities kinda suck because of all the happiness penalties. Venice does well with them, though, because Venice has the cash to buy happiness and enough gold/research buildings to offset the gold/research penalties.

[Satarus]

Puppets used to be kinda broken and OP.  Before, the best way to play was to make 3-4 cities of your own to be your main production hub.  Then just puppet everything in your path. You'd have lots of gold, science, and faith per turn from your huge puppet empire.

[Orb]

Someone asked about multiplayer. For Civ5, it's run on servers. You can do a normal host, and turns can be played out simultaneously or the usual turn based (there is a seperate option when at war). When someone leaves the AI takes over. Civ5 can also do pitboss, which is where you set up a permanent server and people log on to do their turns. This might work for Bay12, but the game would take months.

Also multiplayer is somewhat bug ridden as per usual. Pitboss alleviates some of the issues.

[LoSboccacc]

I'd be in for some bay12 action.

If turns are at a leisure pace, the better.