Civ 5 inspired by Panzer General

[Brotherman Bill]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09 ... ization-v/

RPS: Did you figure it out? I grew up playing so many games I didn’t understand.

JS: I was able to figure it out! Because I was really into history, and I’ve always had this love of maps. You can see so much of history’s influence through maps, with how the borders change. So Panzer General was like, “Ooh! Maps! WW2! This has gotta be good!”

The combat system in that was actually very, very similar to what we have in Civ V. We ended up branching away from Panzer General through iteration, but yeah. [At the time] I thought that Panzer General was cool, but I wished it could be bigger. That’s how I got into Civilization. It was like, “This is it!” But I wished it had the combat from Panzer General.

He also reveals that Sid coded the entire AI of the previous Civ's:

RPS: OK. So we’re nearly there! How did that end up becoming lead designer?

JS: Well the thing about design at Firaxis is that it’s fairly unique compared to design at other companies. Most companies have a lot of specialised designers, so for an RPG you’d have quest designers and narrative designers, and area designers and maybe a lead designer that organises them all. The way it works at Firaxis is that there is a designer, and he is also the gameplay programmer who programs all the gameplay rules, and he also programs all the AI.

RPS: Even for the more recent Civilizations? There’s one guy doing the core of the programming?

JS: Yeah. The thing is, that’s always how Sid Meier’s done it. Firaxis is his company, and that’s just the model that we use. The games have been successful, and it’s the only way that we know.

of civ 5 or of Panzer General?

discuss!!!!

 

[spectre]

So, they're trying to say there's more stuff taken from PG than hexes and the nomenclature: Major/Minor/Victory/Defeat? Derp.

And a serious of Sid Meier imo, cause Civ 4 AI was poppycock. On higher levels it cheated like fuck, on lower levels its behavior felt scripted as hell.

 

[Takeda Kenshi]

The AI in Civ always cheated like fuck on higher difficulty levels.

 

[Zeus]

This was covered in a huge, text-heavy feature in Gamepro magazine months ago.

That's right, under the leadership of John Davison, Gamepro has gone from "FUN FACTOR 5!" to longform journalism that beats anything coming out of dedicated PC gaming mags.




I'm not sure how it happened, but now I want to subscribe.

 

[Elwro]

Herostratus, "that’s always how Sid Meier’s done it" doesn't mean Sid Meier did AI coding. It means that the lead designer did the AI, too. For example, in Civ IV it was Soren Johnson.

 

[MapMan]

Shame to admit but I never got around playing previous Civs. Will be Civ 5 OK to start with? I know many(Skyway) will say civ 3 is the best but I doubt I could get into it if its the hardest in the series.

 

[Elwro]

For me, Civ 3 is easily the worst. I have no idea if V will be as great as IV... Start with IV or I, to see the birth of the great series.

 

[Zeus]

Shame to admit but I never got around playing previous Civs. Will be Civ 5 OK to start with? I know many(Skyway) will say civ 3 is the best but I doubt I could get into it if its the hardest in the series.

Yeah... Civ 3 is generally considered the worst (unless you count Civ Rev, which isn't part of the main series). I can see a certain hardcore appeal, but that's definitely not the consensus among strategy fans. Most seem to prefer II and IV.

From the sound of it, Civ V is easier to get into than Civ IV. Instead of a million religions, civics, etc. to keep track of, I think they reduced it to a number of (I forget the name) empire goals or ruling philosophies. So in theory at least, it should be easier to guide your kingdom how you like without memorizing the tech tree, etc.

 

[1eyedking]

And a serious of Sid Meier imo, cause Civ 4 AI was poppycock. On higher levels it cheated like fuck, on lower levels its behavior felt scripted as hell.

One does not simply walk into cIV Noble difficulty without Better BTS/BUG AI.

 

[PorkaMorka]

In Panzer General, Italy is something like a billion hexes.

In Civilization it is 2-7 hexes unless you're playing on a Europe only map.

Gameplay conventions that make sense in Panzer general make a lot less sense on a global scale game.

No stacking in Civilization is literally the dumbest thing ever in terms of verisimilitude.

When conducting the defense of France, no general ever thought... damn, we're out of room in France, I guess we'll have to have our supporting artillery in Spain,

 

[OSK]

snip

How is any of this an issue? It sounds like you're confusing the Civilization series for some kind of WW2 simulation. France won't be putting their artillery in Spain in Civ V, because there is no Spain in Civ V.

Poorly playable world maps have always been an issue in the Civ series. On world maps, the UK is usually a whopping two tiles, Europe is overcrowded while the rest of the world is practically unpopulated. The Civ series isn't about re-creating history, it's about creating your own history.

I don't think I'm the only one who plays exclusively on randomly generated maps.

 

[PorkaMorka]

snip

How is any of this an issue? It sounds like you're confusing the Civilization series for some kind of WW2 simulation. France won't be putting their artillery in Spain in Civ V, because there is no Spain in Civ V.

Poorly playable world maps have always been an issue in the Civ series. On world maps, the UK is usually a whopping two tiles, Europe is overcrowded while the rest of the world is practically unpopulated. The Civ series isn't about re-creating history, it's about creating your own history.

I don't think I'm the only one who plays exclusively on randomly generated maps.

I bring up the world map to illustrate the problem of scale inherent in trying to use Panzer general's gameplay in Civilization.

Limiting stacking could have certain beneficial aspects to gameplay, but it makes a lot more sense with smaller scale hexes. When hexes are the size of a country as in Civilization, it makes less sense, especially when they copy over the supporting fire mechanic, so you literally have artillery in the Iberian peninsula supporting the defense of Paris.

Sorry guys, there is only room for one division in Kuwait, everyone else will have to wait offshore.

 

[Annonchinil]

Civ 5 is abstract... and so is Panzer General. I would be concerned if its a gameplay issue but it does not matter if it is a realism issue..

 

[Burning Bridges]

To Mr. game designer legend:

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Just looked at the screenshots, I see

Fore example, this looks somewhat like a queen, not like a fucking caricature of one:

Although that's not that hard considering where Civilization started. It always looked to me like the whole franchise was made for 10 year olds, perhaps they've grown up and now they are aiming at 20 year olds?

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Herostratus, "that’s always how Sid Meier’s done it" doesn't mean Sid Meier did AI coding. It means that the lead designer did the AI, too. For example, in Civ IV it was Soren Johnson.

Noted.

I don't get the hate towards civ 3 though, I it. Mostly because of the UI and graphics, which were and easily the best in the series.

 

[BethesdaLove]

Minor nitpick for someone but the moment I see that, I start puking left and rigth.
See how the selected unit has on the inside this yellow more or less hard edge selection marker and on the outside its fucking blured/airbrush shit. And the same fucking thing on the purple/yellow border. FUUUUUCK! I HATE IT MORE THAN BLOOM and BLUR combined! It drove me fucking crazy in PG3D which had those disgusting maps. Where PG2 has the BEST maps in strategy gaming history!

 

[OSK]

I bring up the world map to illustrate the problem of scale inherent in trying to use Panzer general's gameplay in Civilization.

Limiting stacking could have certain beneficial aspects to gameplay, but it makes a lot more sense with smaller scale hexes. When hexes are the size of a country as in Civilization, it makes less sense, especially when they copy over the supporting fire mechanic, so you literally have artillery in the Iberian peninsula supporting the defense of Paris.

Sorry guys, there is only room for one division in Kuwait, everyone else will have to wait offshore.

I've noticed that people who make this argument do it for one of two reasons. Either A.) They have the assburgers and are unable to realize that sometimes realism has to be sacrificed for gameplay. Or B.) They prefer larger-scale strategic combat to smaller-scale tactical combat. In the case of the former, I could list dozens of ways the Civ series has always been unrealistic. If the latter, I'd chalk it up to a difference of opinion.

And I do not understand this fetish for limited stacks. What benefit would they have?

If you allow stacks of mixed units, every stack will have an anti-melee unit, an anti-calvary unit, etc. They will all be the same and you strip away that layer of tactical combat gained by one unit per tile. If you only allow stacks of the same unit, then you gain nothing. If you allow stacks to have a max of 5 units, every stack will have 5 units. Why not just have one unit that costs the same to produce as those 5? I remember someone on here mentioning that stacks could be represented by generals, and the size of the stack determined by the experience of the general. But now that I think about it, that's already done through promotions. Allowing a stack an additional unit and increasing a single unit's strength by X% provide the same outcome.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Didn't they already announce that thanks to hexes and no-stack rules, the maps are going to be bigger than before - which works well with the "resources are limited"-policy they were talking about earlier?

Also, PG had a really simplistic rock-paper-scissors combat, so I guess this isn't really either incline or decline for either.

 

[JarlFrank]

Just looked at the screenshots, I see

Fore example, this looks somewhat like a queen, not like a fucking caricature of one:

Although that's not that hard considering where Civilization started. It always looked to me like the whole franchise was made for 10 year olds, perhaps they've grown up and now they are aiming at 20 year olds?

Yeah, this looks a lot better than the "lol let's make leaders cartoony" of Civ4.

 

[Technoviking]

So, they're trying to say there's more stuff taken from PG than hexes and the nomenclature: Major/Minor/Victory/Defeat? Derp.

And a serious of Sid Meier imo, cause Civ 4 AI was poppycock. On higher levels it cheated like fuck, on lower levels its behavior felt scripted as hell.

It 'cheated' as fuck because it was fairly easy to beat. The only thing that makes the highest difficulty levels in Civ IV even remotely interesting is the AI 'cheating'. Is there even a single TBS that has ever been released that doesn't attempt to give their most hardcore players a greater challenge simply by giving the AI a ton of bonuses at higher skill levels?

At least I'm assuming bonuses is what you're mostly talking about when you say 'cheating'. Bonuses such as lower unit upgrade costs, better starting units, no penalty for massive expansion and so forth.

Anyway, in Civ IV if you don't know what you're doing, then you shouldn't bother with the higher difficulty levels. If you do know what you're doing everything before immortal is piss easy and even immortal is not much hassle if you just know how to work your diplomacy.

While Civ IV has plenty of bugs, it's by no means a poor TBS.



I also recommend TheMeInTeam's 'Let's play Civ IV' videos on youtube if any of you are interested in actually learning how to play Civ IV. They're very instructive for entry level players, even if the first few are of a rather low sound/image quality.

 

[PorkaMorka]

B.) They prefer larger-scale strategic combat to smaller-scale tactical combat. In the case of the former,

Tactical combat doesn't make sense at this scale.

The scale is strategic.

Yet they are trying to apply mechanics cribbed from a tactical scale game.

This leads to archers capable of * FIRING OVER MOUNTAIN RANGES * to attack your city.

[1]

Look at that for a second. Realize those are bows and that is a mountain......



Abstraction for the sake of gameplay is always neccessary to some degree, but that's a little too aggressively retarded if you ask me.

And I do not understand this fetish for limited stacks. What benefit would they have?

Sorry, I think I didn't make my point clear enough. I wasn't saying I was in favor of limited stacking, I was just saying limited stacking (or no stacking) makes more sense in a game (Panzer general) with a much smaller scale. Only full stacking (or stacking up to some very high limit) makes sense in Civ.

If you allow stacks of mixed units, every stack will have an anti-melee unit, an anti-calvary unit, etc. They will all be the same and you strip away that layer of tactical combat gained by one unit per tile.

In terms of ideas, if not in terms of proper balance, proper stacked combat in Civilization was already solved in Civilization: Call to Power.

This is what happens when your stack bumps into an enemy stack:

Look at it for a second.

If properly balanced, you solve the tedium / wasted time of moving units in to fight one at a time. You provide value to multiple unit types, yet you avoid the stupidity of a single pikeman defending against a horde of cavalry. There is more freedom to design unit abilities, like flanking. Lots of thought into how to build your stack. You get some cool big battles to watch.

And it's not as aggressively stupid as the way it's done in Civ 5.

[1] Note that archers may not be able to fire over mountains in the final release unless they have a spotter or line of sight, but they can still fire that far, they just might not be able to see over the mountain.

 

[Malakal]

So how much is one hex exactly? Since it is not told You can assume whatever pleases You. Lets say its 100m wide so archers can fire over mountains (those mountains are also 20m high). Makes perfect sense. City population? Thats hundreds of people, 12 means 1200 etc. Happy now?

Seriously its an abstraction. Archers do not fire over mountain they are skirmishers sent to harass city defences. Or whatever You wish for them to be.

 

[PorkaMorka]

So how much is one hex exactly? Since it is not told You can assume whatever pleases You. Lets say its 100m wide so archers can fire over mountains (those mountains are also 20m high). Makes perfect sense. City population? Thats hundreds of people, 12 means 1200 etc. Happy now?

Seriously its an abstraction. Archers do not fire over mountain they are skirmishers sent to harass city defences. Or whatever You wish for them to be.

Hex size varies from map to map, but typically an official world map and/or map of Europe will be provided and then you can extrapolate the size of a hex from that somewhat.

Or at the very least, once you've explored the world map, you can see the whole planet, so you get a sense of scale from that.

At least enough to generally get the idea that a hex (or square in earlier games) is BIG.

Here is Europe from the Civ 1 world map.

In later games they expand the map size and so Europe gets a bit bigger.

Also typically the actual population of a city is listed in Civ games, so we'll almost certainly have an actual size for them.

No offense but your reasoning above strikes me as post hoc rationalization for the silly aspects of a game, rather than the actual reasoning behind the mechanic working that way.

Anyway, it's certainly an abstraction, but at some point you reach a level of abstraction where you start to see significant tradeoffs between increased abstraction and decreased verisimilitude. Archers shooting from Spain to Paris probably cross that line.

 

[spectre]

If you want to have an historically accurate game, you just don't play Civilization.
Can we just get over it people?