It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri™Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth(21 posts)(21 posts)
(21 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 04, 2014
If this interview is any indication:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/succeeding-in-civilization-beyond-earth-diplomacy-/1100-6422006/

Now, let's see, let us count the things Civilization: Beyond Earth incorporates by "inspiration" from Alpha Centauri:

1. Xenofungus, check
2. Mind worms, check
3. Isles of the Deep (krakens in Civ: BE), check
4. Tactically spreading or destroying "miasma" (equivalent to xenofungal bloom areas) depending on faction's preference, check
5. Orbital layer interface (satellite / planetary target selection screen), check
6. Destroying other faction's satellites and/or affecting their ecosystem, check
7. Rainy and Arid values on squares/hexes depending on rainfall, check
8. Different climates depending on terrain/axis and terraforming, check
9. Faction default strategy descriptions reminiscent of definitely the Gaians and Spartans, and maybe the Hive or Peacekeepers, check
10. Aliens/mind worms/barbarians attack or ignore player based upon policies, check
11. Diplomacy favors appeasing other factions (like AC) instead of favoring the maintenance of stable trade and commerce networks, or utilizing a large military (like Civ), check
12. Tech tree branches out similarly to "Explore", "Build", "Discovery", and "Conquer" branches, check
13. Tech tree progression (without trading) is influenced more by your faction's preferences (like AC) than by prevailing game conditions (like Civ), check
14. Ecological engineering / terraforming and manmade climate/terrain changes, check
15. Multiclass "Virtue" System (aka Faction Policy Profile interface), check

So... thats at least 15 things which are taken straight out of AC's playbook... Well, hopefully they'll try to refine these things, because these 15 concepts were used or pioneered by a 15-year old game!
Post edited September 04, 2014 by StickOfPlywood
Posted October 15, 2014
avatar
Redspyder: As long as they're intending to stick with 1UPT (1 unit per tile) , I won't be buying. Which is a profound pity, says this long-time Firaxis fan whose first Firaxis purchase was a new copy of Civ1 (yes, I'm old) and who has bought all the products up to Civ5. Civ5 I played a few times and found utterly repulsive, because of the 1UPT (Dale of Civ modding fame and several others have gone into detail as to how 1UPT affected all the other design decisions -- negatively). I nearly fainted when I heard abotu Beyond Earth -- then I swore mightily when I read the lead dev's comment that he likes 1UPT and will be sticking with it.

Oh, well. I'm content playing Alpha Centauri and heavily-modded Civ 3 and Civ 4. (Hell, Civ2 is still on my hard drive).
avatar
Adokat: May I ask why you dislike it so much?

One of the reasons that I strongly prefer Civ 5 to 4 is the 1UPT rule and the removal of 4's doomstacks. It's a feature that I think works well with a hex-based system (I wouldn't use it with a grid layout). I felt like the removal of doomstacks added more complexity in unit choice and placement.

Of course, I shouldn't overstate its importance either way, since SMAC is an amazing 4x game, and I was never bothered by unit stacking there. I think SMAC balances it a little better. Other approaches I've heard are concepts like allowing multiple units per tile but having some sort of supply/logistic requirement to hold multiple ones.

A little more on topic: I haven't been too impressed by Beyond Earth. I guess I was hoping for something with as strong a personality and an interesting setting/story like Alpha Centauri. Nothing's really grabbing me right now. Of course, judging a 4x game isn't best done from a few youtube videos, so I'll still keep an eye on it.
Many others have gone into it better than I, including Jon Shafer (dev on Civ5), and how 1UPT breaks more systems than just itself. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jonshafer/jon-shafers-at-the-gates/posts/404789
Further, a game like CIv5 is strategic, not tactical. 1UPT works in Panzer General because it is a tactical game. England, for instance, in PG is several HUNDRED hexes, whereas in Civ5 it's something like 5 hexes. In PG, 1UPT works because you have room to maneuver and it makes sense inherently to be maneuvering small units. In Civ, nothing is a small unit.
A better solution to the "stack-o-doom": add to the tech tree "command and control" philosophies. Each unit gets an effectiveness rating -- 100% meaning it uses 100% of its power. But for each unit stacked in a single hex, degrade effectiveness by, say, 25% (where effectiveness can only degrade to 0.1). Command and Control would improve that, letting you create (and manage) larger stacks more effectively. Now we bring back in a unit from Civ3 -- the Army, which is a "container" that can contain a number of other units (in Civ3, the upper limit I think was 4 units). Now we rate each unit for its chief purpose (anti-tank capability, which does x2 dmg versus tanks, for instance). The Army unit contains the rating for each unit -- allowing a genuine use of the combined-arms philosophy. It fights as a whole, with the strongest power unit + 10% from each included unit, +(all tags) from the units within.
This would not be an arbitrary rule (1UPT), it would be a far more realistic solution, and it would allow actual, real-world tactics and strategies (combined arms, command and control, etc) to be realised in-game. IT also would acknowledge that Civ is a strategic game, not a tactical one. Tactical -- archers shooting 2 hexes make sense; Strategic -- archers shooting hundreds of miles by shooting over a hex is ludicrous. But you can an archer value through combined arms (first shot, perhaps).
1UPT was brilliant in PG; it was ridiculous in Civ5. (I use PG in the example because the Civ5 folks told us quite blatantly that they took their inspiration from PG in re-designing the Civ series to be 1UPT)
But again, that's my opinion. Civ5 sold well. More power to them. For some of us, 1UPT is unnecessary and flawed and there are far too many good solutions out there (as above, which would limit stacking not through an arbitrary rule but from rules that spring from actual history and actual military philosophies and allow more variety through an actual combined-arms capability) for 1UPT to be the one they go with. They did go with it, they did sell well, and good for them. As a buyer who's been there since Civ1 and bought all their products up to and never including Civ5, it was quite disheartening to not buy any of their products CIv5 and forward. But that's their choices, and my choice in response.
Posted October 17, 2014
avatar
Adokat: May I ask why you dislike it so much?

One of the reasons that I strongly prefer Civ 5 to 4 is the 1UPT rule and the removal of 4's doomstacks. It's a feature that I think works well with a hex-based system (I wouldn't use it with a grid layout). I felt like the removal of doomstacks added more complexity in unit choice and placement.

Of course, I shouldn't overstate its importance either way, since SMAC is an amazing 4x game, and I was never bothered by unit stacking there. I think SMAC balances it a little better. Other approaches I've heard are concepts like allowing multiple units per tile but having some sort of supply/logistic requirement to hold multiple ones.

A little more on topic: I haven't been too impressed by Beyond Earth. I guess I was hoping for something with as strong a personality and an interesting setting/story like Alpha Centauri. Nothing's really grabbing me right now. Of course, judging a 4x game isn't best done from a few youtube videos, so I'll still keep an eye on it.
avatar
Redspyder: Many others have gone into it better than I, including Jon Shafer (dev on Civ5), and how 1UPT breaks more systems than just itself. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jonshafer/jon-shafers-at-the-gates/posts/404789
Further, a game like CIv5 is strategic, not tactical. 1UPT works in Panzer General because it is a tactical game. England, for instance, in PG is several HUNDRED hexes, whereas in Civ5 it's something like 5 hexes. In PG, 1UPT works because you have room to maneuver and it makes sense inherently to be maneuvering small units. In Civ, nothing is a small unit.
A better solution to the "stack-o-doom": add to the tech tree "command and control" philosophies. Each unit gets an effectiveness rating -- 100% meaning it uses 100% of its power. But for each unit stacked in a single hex, degrade effectiveness by, say, 25% (where effectiveness can only degrade to 0.1). Command and Control would improve that, letting you create (and manage) larger stacks more effectively. Now we bring back in a unit from Civ3 -- the Army, which is a "container" that can contain a number of other units (in Civ3, the upper limit I think was 4 units). Now we rate each unit for its chief purpose (anti-tank capability, which does x2 dmg versus tanks, for instance). The Army unit contains the rating for each unit -- allowing a genuine use of the combined-arms philosophy. It fights as a whole, with the strongest power unit + 10% from each included unit, +(all tags) from the units within.
This would not be an arbitrary rule (1UPT), it would be a far more realistic solution, and it would allow actual, real-world tactics and strategies (combined arms, command and control, etc) to be realised in-game. IT also would acknowledge that Civ is a strategic game, not a tactical one. Tactical -- archers shooting 2 hexes make sense; Strategic -- archers shooting hundreds of miles by shooting over a hex is ludicrous. But you can an archer value through combined arms (first shot, perhaps).
1UPT was brilliant in PG; it was ridiculous in Civ5. (I use PG in the example because the Civ5 folks told us quite blatantly that they took their inspiration from PG in re-designing the Civ series to be 1UPT)
But again, that's my opinion. Civ5 sold well. More power to them. For some of us, 1UPT is unnecessary and flawed and there are far too many good solutions out there (as above, which would limit stacking not through an arbitrary rule but from rules that spring from actual history and actual military philosophies and allow more variety through an actual combined-arms capability) for 1UPT to be the one they go with. They did go with it, they did sell well, and good for them. As a buyer who's been there since Civ1 and bought all their products up to and never including Civ5, it was quite disheartening to not buy any of their products CIv5 and forward. But that's their choices, and my choice in response.
I appreciate your point of tactical versus strategic gameplay, and clearly we agree that there are plenty of ways around stacks of doom. Nevertheless, I'd always take 1UPT over Civ 4's system. Frankly, it's why I can't get into Civ 4.

Also, I take all these games as abstractions anyways, so I don't have any problem of units shooting multiple hexes.

Funnily enough, I play my games as peacefully as I can, even on Deity. I'd recommend you reconsider Civ 5. It's been radically transformed since Vanilla.
Posted October 23, 2014
Quite interesting that his old post remains kind of relevant to the discussion.
avatar
ander01se: "This is going our own direction," Beyond Earth designer Anton Strenger said in a phone interview earlier this week. "But that's not to say that we have not, you know, drawn some inspiration from Alpha Centauri."
I'm really curious as to what inspiration there is since the only similarities are a little of the native alien lifeforms and being on a different planet. That seems to be pretty much it.

Especially, after watching TotalBiscuit's WTF it appears to be little more than Civ 5 "Now in a sci-fi dressing!" which was pretty much what I gathered from all the preview material. Yeeeeeah.... no, thanks. Looks like my fav Civ--franchise-game Alpha Centauri will remain the most outstanding in theme and execution. ;)

Curiously AC has been creeping up the GOG sales list again lately. Undoubtedly due to Beyond Earth's imminent release. (Aside: I'm still trying to figure out why Neverwinter Nights 2 has made a quite noticeably upsurge in sales, too)
Posted October 28, 2014
Put in 50 hours in it already, it lacks the soul. There is nonsensical disconnects between narratives and actual gameplay. And typically suffers from the failings of design that it inherits from Civ V because this feels like an elaborate mod.

The orbital layer is nice but underutilised. Also, why no way to reveal whole map? A whole game feature is about satellites and it has narrations about charting the planet...but apparently it can't take photos of the surface to just reveal map?

Virtues are nice but still inflexible.

Its boardgamey without the strategic flexibility of its predecessors.

If you loved Civ V, you will love this.

If you loved SMAC, you can have a go and then realise all the miss opportunities. Of course, go your own direction but also learn what the attraction was about SMAC, this failed to capture the magic.

I've actually just reinstalled SMAC after putting the whole weekend in on BE and just so happen to be posting here cause I came here to remind myself about fixing the resolutions in SMAC.
Posted October 30, 2014
I've been playing Civilization: Beyond Earth since it launched last week, and have been enjoying it quite a bit. I started with settings that include a giant planet that consists of two large land masses, a few islands, and 2 moderate sized oceans. On a Marathon pace, I'm at about 900 turns into the game, with no end immediately in sight.

It is more reminiscent of Alpha Centauri than it is of Civilization 5. My only complaint is with the game's layout. I enjoy in other Civilization games right clicking on a unit or building or technology that I own and reading its CivPedia entry, but accessing the CivPedia in this game is a little more cumbersome: you must either open the CivPedia and type out the entry name (or scroll through the list) or you can right click on an item from the City Production menu and then read its corresponding CivPedia entry. I'm one who used to love reading the CivPedia article for something I'd just produced or discovered, in other words I preferred to consult the CivPedia AFTER obtaining the item in question rather than BEFORE. In this game, so far, that appears not to be an option.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri™Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth(21 posts)(21 posts)
(21 posts)