Civilization - Beyond Earth (Alpha Centauri Sequel)

So unimproved Civ 5 with skins and new tilesets? Uh...

Heh that's exactly what I was thinking. Seems like nothing more than a big Civ5 mod. I guess at this point they are just trying to milk the brand for all its worth.

will buy in 5$ bargain bucket.

Will the multiplayer still be horrible, unmoddable and laggy? Will the difficulty throughout a game still be rapidly dropping as time passes?

Will the mindset behind AI strategy remain "let the player win, it's more fun that way"?

I will most likely buy this and regret it.

I want to like Civ5 more than I do. I like the map change. I do like the stacking change. But considering that with mods you can make 4 entirely different games out of Civ4.... I wonder a little bit at the thought process involved with all the rest. Civ4 was a huge success because of the modability. So yeah... fuck that. Lets make the next Civ a giant pain in the ass to mod!

breadcatdickbutt

Furry_sl said:

I think one of the problems with civ is they use the same AI as the original game, and the people still playing this crap have improved.

I liked the civ ceries, but its pretty much the case book definition of incredibly iterative. I might pick this up when it hits the discount bin, maybe...

Click to expand...

nah, Civ 1 AI was way, way way more aggressive. Kinda Hitler vs Mother Theresa aggressive if compared to V.

There are mods to fix that, but still not to the extend of Civ 1. And you can't mod MP, which just flat out sucks.

The worst part of the difficulty remains that they made the AI start out with a massive headstart on higher difficulties, which makes the game really one true way to start or you'll never catch up while it's actually the late to end game that the AI is the weakest on moderate to harder difficulties.

That interview definitely makes it sound very interesting.

I found the interview to be long and dull, talking forever about individual features. You could easily make an interview like that make BNW sound like the best Civ of all time, the general interview tone is just too positive. What's good about all these "diplomacy features" when the AI just sits in their territories, dick in hand, waiting for you to win a peaceful victory?

The only thing that would make me buy this is if the AI is VASTLY superior to civ 5... since you know its all about single player and 40 turns in you already win the game if you survive..

Some droned on. But details like AI varying by terrain seems to imply that concern is being addressed, plus them saying there's very little UNlike stuff in it.

And they did elaborate pretty well on faction being completely customized.

You've just got a chip on your shoulder about Civ5 , no matter what they said you'd birch.

And note on aggressive wins in Civ. Assuming realism, aggressive Civs haven't been super successful IRL in a 4000 year span - even the once Viking Scandanavians are peaceful for centuries now....

Realism makes for shitty long term gameplay.
The AI is god awful at 1UPT

Usually Multiplayer is good at countering that sort of thing, but getting matches in Civ V takes longer than playing through a single player game, and those I managed to get had horrible performance. 20-30 seconds of waiting time after everyone finished their turn and some really weird performance issues such as Barbarians being able to move on their spawning turn. Idiots at Civfanatics pretending this is also the case in single player doesn't help.

Eh, there's always enough citystates to warmonger if you care to. (you know, like modern military stuff mostly is... Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind...)

And on barbs, literally playing ATM to get some rust off, and had a settler walking past a barn camp with no units get stolen from one spawning and instantly moving to take it.

Maybe they're less situational in MP. But absolutely does happen UN SP in some cases quite clearly.

(also it's a bit amusing criticizing the AI being too passive, then that the barb AI is too aggressive in the next breath)

I've tested it repeatedly, barbarian units do not move on their spawning turn. Placed 5 scouts around a camp and put a settler next to the only open space. Barbarian spawned, didn't take it.
I'm not criticizing barbarians for being aggressive but for playing by different rules in multiplayer.
What I am criticizing is that the game becomes bland after 1/4th of the turns if you're going for a non conquest victory because the AI just sits by idle as you buy all the city states / massively increase tourism / run away with tech in your 4 city powerciv.

City state warmongering doesn't make for interesting gameplay, because they just drop dead if you look at them hard. They also suck at 1upt, even more so because they don't field 20 units.

I'll pirate this this time. I regret spending double money on steam for 2x Civ5 BNW and we ended up not playing it because it's not really that good once you're into it.

It's amusing you critique that method of winning in 5 while praising 1, where turtling one city was often trivial to win with even on the highest difficulties.

I don't understand why Vaclav is cupping Civ5's balls? I've played every Civ game 1-5 and AC, and 5 is by far the worst of the pack. It sucks. I'd be interested in this new AC if it was based off their old system, but it's based off of Civ5, so fuck that. They still owe me a refund for Civ5.

I ain't got a chip on my shoulder, I got a fucking boulder, and I don't give a shit. They ripped us off, it's as simple as that.

I got civ5 off humble and I feel ripped off -- it's that bad.

It looks pretty, I guess. Where was the gameplay though? Where was the adjusting AI? Where were the game mechanics to make each victory goal require completely different play styles?