Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth

[MilesBeyond]

that's common in almost every 4x.

I've never experienced it in any other 4X that I've played. I mean, sure, having the game bloat a bit towards the endgame is common, but not to the extent that FFH does. I've never played another 4X where I spend more time waiting for my turn than I spend taking my turn - and I've been playing 4Xs since the early 90s.

 

[granit]

Someone point out a game that was fixed by mods.

Half-Life 1

 

[Space Satan]

Decline must flow.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

I don't know why I bother with this shit.

Hexes were a deal breaker to begin with.

 

[KoolNoodles]

Ehhh....hexes are fine, can be great even. They just didn't do it right(AI). In multiplayer it's way more interesting and challenging than Civ 1-4. I'm talking about combat only(which all Civ games, perhaps unfortunately, have a lot of). The rest is debateable. Not Civ:BE though, that just sucks.

 

[tuluse]

Hexes are good, 1upt is bad.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

hexes are good, this game is bad.

 

[MilesBeyond]

I don't now why I bother with this shit.

Hexes were a deal breaker to begin with.

I almost hesitate to ask this, but... Why would hexes, of all thing, be a deal-breaker?

 

[Average Manatee]

Ehhh....hexes are fine, can be great even. They just didn't do it right(AI). In multiplayer it's way more interesting and challenging than Civ 1-4. I'm talking about combat only(which all Civ games, perhaps unfortunately, have a lot of). The rest is debateable. Not Civ:BE though, that just sucks.

Civ 4 has way more interesting and challenging combat than anything Firaxis has released since.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Civ 4 has way more interesting and challenging combat than anything Firaxis has released since.

In practice, absolutely no question. On paper, I'd argue that Civ 5's combat is potentially more interesting and challenging. It's just implemented in such an absurdly awful way.

Like when what's-his-face, the lead dev guy, said that he wanted to do a more Panzer General-style combat, I didn't think that it was literally going to be a super-shallow version of Panzer General superimposed on Civ. And yet that's what we ended up with.

I honestly think that a 1UPT tactical combat can be both very deep and incredibly fun, it's just Civ 5 (not to mention the atrocity that is BE) managed to make just about every possible mistake there is to make with it.

Plus in 4X games, it's always a balance, you know? Between macro and micro, I mean. Games like Age of Wonders and even Master of Magic work with tactical combat because the empire management aspect of those games is relatively simple. IMHO in Civ the empire management has always been way more interesting than the combat, so focusing on the combat seems like a bit of a mistake - like they don't understand what made previous games great. It'd be like if someone said "Hey, you know what made Deus Ex a great game? The gunplay. So let's cut out the story, dialogue, options, and decisions, and instead make a Deus Ex sequel that focuses mostly on the shooting." This is, of course, a completely hypothetical situation because such a sequel to Deus Ex never happened. Right? It. Never. Happened.

Same principle, though. I mean when I play empire-building games like Civ or Dominions or basically anything Paradox has made I'm not like "Dag yo where's the tactical combat at." Just like how when I play Panzer General or Jagged Alliance 2 or XCom or some weird-ass Japanese game like Final Suikoden Emblem Tactics 47: The Villain Almost Finishes Masturbating Over A Traumatic Event I'm never like "Dag yo where's the strategic management at."

I can't remember any games that have succeeded at both excellent empire management and excellent tactical combat (even the great MoO 2 couldn't quite pull it off IMHO), and Civ 5 is, unsurprisingly, no exception.

 

[Space Satan]

CivIV had only one problem - doomstacks. Firaxis failed to create a workable combat system even when they already had perfect solution for doomstacks we saw in Alpha Centauri.

 

[flyingjohn]

Wow 30 dollars for cities on oceans and "better" diplomacy(they still haven't explained how anything will be better). All of beyond earth problems are the same problems present in civ v and worse because they cant use history as a larping game.
This game and civ v are never going to be playable because of core issues:
1)The ai is the worst ai seen in any 4x game both tactically and diplomatically.
The tactical ai biggest issue is it has no memory and it has no agenda during any wars.
Ai just randomly throws units at you hoping you will quit the game out of boredom.And that is if the ai actually decides to attack you instead of randomly dancing around cities which happens frequently.
Diplomatic ai isn't to blame for psychopathic diplomacy but the developers stupidity with so many negative modifiers and so few positive modifiers.If you built a wonder, settled anywhere near them ,accidentally got a city state favor or even trying to win the game the ai will despise you.
And not to mention the stupidity of ai forward settling shitty cities in front of you and then hating you for it and declaring war.
2)Balance does not exist whatsoever in any form in both civ v and beyond earth.There is always one optimal social policy opening and path to take and taking anything other is boring and ineffective.
The same applies to units and combat ,especially frigates and arty.But the ranged combat is just a broken model that needs to be nerfed because the ability to do damage without any counter and no chance to miss is a deal breaker.
In practice these things could work if somebody who actually plays games balances out all factors,but that aint happening.

And looking at the steamcharts, the new civ players dont care and will just buy this expansion and new modern cinematic civ 6 in droves,well at least amplitude studios is improving and paradox is still here.

 

[cvv]

And looking at the steamcharts, the new civ players dont care and will just buy modern cinematic civ 6 in droves

First of all, Civ V in its current form is one of the best and most complex TB strategies on the market. Personally I can't think of a better TB strategy for myself since I don't like Paradox' realtime grand strategies and I haven't played Endless Legends yet. It's certainly neither the Warlocks nor the AoE 3.

And I fucking hope the next Civ WILL finally be cinematic. If there's anything this series needs art-wise it's a better presentation of World Wonders, cities and maybe even technologies. In Civ 1 we could see the cities grow, which was great, and in Civ 2 the wonder movies were absolutely top notch. Both of that has been sorely missing in the Civ games since then.

If Firaxis get their shit together and make a more cinematic and even more complex Civ VI you betcha people will buy it in droves.

 

[Average Manatee]

CivIV had only one problem - doomstacks. Firaxis failed to create a workable combat system even when they already had perfect solution for doomstacks we saw in Alpha Centauri.

The solution was catapults, git gud.

Alpha Centauri was a completely different kind of combat system.

 

[flyingjohn]

And looking at the steamcharts, the new civ players dont care and will just buy modern cinematic civ 6 in droves

First of all, Civ V in its current form is one of the best and most complex TB strategies on the market. Personally I can't think of a better TB strategy for myself since I don't like Paradox' realtime grand strategies and I haven't played Endless Legends yet. It's certainly neither the Warlocks nor the AoE 3.

I guess it is more complicated considering all those games you listed arent focused on empire management and are more lite wargames,but it doesnt matter if the ai cant play game and most of the complex choices are irrelevant because of balance issues(tradition,rationalism) which force you down one path.
As for the cinematic thing i dint mean the good types of cinematic like better presentation but the bad kind of like kill cams and less game play type which they probably will implement.
And i do miss the wonder movies form previous civs.
And i would really like that civ 6 is more complicated and has a better presentation ,but i have a bad feeling that is just going to be civ v with less features and the same ai.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

First of all, Civ V in its current form is one of the best and most complex TB strategies on the market.

no. just no. it's enjoyable, can be played, it's still extremely far from being a complex game, even farther from being a good game. nowhere in this universe it's one of the best.

And I fucking hope the next Civ WILL finally be cinematic. If there's anything this series needs art-wise it's a better presentation of World Wonders, cities and maybe even technologies. In Civ 1 we could see the cities grow, which was great, and in Civ 2 the wonder movies were absolutely top notch. Both of that has been sorely missing in the Civ games since then.

If Firaxis get their shit together and make a more cinematic and even more complex Civ VI you betcha people will buy it in droves.

oh, damn, my bad, i'm sorry, i thought we were having a serious discussion.
i won't bother your silliness anymore.

 

[cvv]

First of all, Civ V in its current form is one of the best and most complex TB strategies on the market.

no. just no. it's enjoyable, can be played, it's still extremely far from being a complex game, even farther from being a good game. nowhere in this universe it's one of the best.

Give me at least two better games of this genre released in the last ten years.

 

[Norfleet]

CivIV had only one problem - doomstacks. Firaxis failed to create a workable combat system even when they already had perfect solution for doomstacks we saw in Alpha Centauri.

The solution was catapults, git gud.

Alpha Centauri was a completely different kind of combat system.

AC already had a solution to Doomstacks, and catapults weren't it, because artillery only did a small amount of damage and it would take massed artillery to even reduce everything in it to...half health.

The REAL answer is

 

[BlackAdderBG]

SoD are myth repeated by people that don't play Civ IV.

 

[Destroid]

SoD are myth repeated by people that don't play Civ IV.

It certainly HAS doomstacks. Whether they are a problem is another question entirely.

 

[Trash Player]

Give me at least two better games of this genre released in the last ten years.

It is a sad genre, isn't it?

 

[MilesBeyond]

CivIV had only one problem - doomstacks. Firaxis failed to create a workable combat system even when they already had perfect solution for doomstacks we saw in Alpha Centauri.

No, they had the perfect solution for doomstacks - Siege Weapons. They even added in Flanking in that one expansion as the perfect solution to Siege Weapon Stacks of Doom. The problem is that they didn't teach the AI any of this.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

First of all, Civ V in its current form is one of the best and most complex TB strategies on the market.

no. just no. it's enjoyable, can be played, it's still extremely far from being a complex game, even farther from being a good game. nowhere in this universe it's one of the best.

Give me at least two better games of this genre released in the last ten years.

having no contestant doesn't make you any better.

 

[cvv]

Give me at least two better games of this genre released in the last ten years.

having no contestant doesn't make you any better.

Then what are you compare it against? What is your imaginary dream game that Civ V can't hold a candle to?

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

let me try with an example.
pick your favourite team sport. at the end of the season, the winning team scored 100 points, the runner up 95, the third 30. the third team is not "among the three best", it's just a fucking disgrace on top of even worse fucking disgraces.