The other civilizations game

You must have missed this screen. 

As is your points are valid. The tone of wording you use implies its a finished product in which is misleading with out the picture above.

 Hmm,, maybe you are talking about Sid's new game though.

I believe he's talking about Sid's new game.  Alpha Centau...ER, I mean, Beyond Earth.

Over twenty five percent of the people I know have it...only because it has civ logo. I really honestly do really honestly hate BE. Its all hype...and Evil!

I don't think it's a good game because there is hardly anything new about it. I mean the game IS new. But there is nothing really new or exciting in it. Its ironically not a space game, its a different colored map people! For all I care it could as dam well been earth, I'm not buying or pirating* (< reference to another thread) advocating or saying anything nice about it!!!!! EVER!!!* (or so I think.)

The game doesn't add much to or more than civ5 and seems it will get old after a few games played, its like it wasn't built right. I haven't seen anything in reviews that tell me alot about the game either, the steam description is vague and other reveiws are unhelpful yet sadly optimistic.

AGGG!!!

I'm curious what the hard core alpha centauri fans think of it.

I tried out the demo. It looks like a space version of Civ 5 with an occasional new element. After that, my opinion is limited.

Not impressed at all with Civilization 5: Beyond Dearth. I've played the demo twice and watched a Let's play series.

It feels lifeless and carries all the baggage from Civilization 5. (1UPT and all its attendant problems such as the AI being incapable of using it combat wise and horrific diplomacy, etc.) It really feels like Civilization 5 with a pasted on Sci-Fi theme and a few novel changes.

Plus, the UI is awful. Jon Shafer did a much better job in Civilization 5 in that regard.

Alpha Centauri is light years ahead of Beyond Dearth and it has been out for over 15 years.

BE has its issues, but it has a lot of good points as well. To return to the intent of the original post, I think it there are some things that it is particularly useful to learn from it.

Problem: The end game is pretty awful. Specifically, I build the Mind Flower or whatever the Harmony end-game building is which take twenty-something turns, and then I am told it will be 39 turns until I win. The AI does not proceed to get any more aggressive, and my military is too dominant for it to matter anyway. This means I have won already, but the game is making me hit end turn 39 more times before the game actually ends. This was probably the most boring sequence I've encountered in a 4x game. Oh, and there isn't even a cut scene at the end. 

Lesson: All win conditions should be fun and the once victory is assured, the game should end quickly. Any win condition that ends with hitting the turn button over and over again should be redesigned. Also, I know it seems silly, but a cinematic for a win goes a long way toward creating a sense of accomplishment at the end.

Problem: Bad AI. I am not a particularly skilled 4x player, and am usually not too critical of AI, but the BE AI does some glaringly stupid things. I would go to war with a civ across the world and we would never get our troops close to each other's territory, then he would send me a peace proposal offering once of his cities.

Lesson: Not too worried about this one for GC3, if GC2 had any specific strength relative to other 4xs it was its AI, and I trust that GC3 will be the same.

Problem: Health. There may be some who disagree with me, but health in BE and its Civ 5 equivalent happiness drive me up a wall. In theory, this is a mechanic designed to slow/stop city spam and steamrolling. In practice, what it does is punish the player for active, aggressive game-play. Essentially you are punished for fun.

Lesson: Don't punish active game-play. There is nothing in GC3 so far that resembles this mechanic, but the lesson should be kept in mind more broadly. Think about how your mechanics encourage players to play, and make sure that that play-style is fun and engaging.

I think it is also useful to look at what BE does well.

Positive: I think the thing that the greatest strength of the game is how its various systems interact. Tech, ideology, and virtues all interact in meaningful and interesting ways. The tech web is interesting, and I think more engaging than a traditional tree, although it can also be very confusing at times. I really like the way virtues work, with the x and y axis bonuses. I also like how tech gives you different kinds of units, while ideology gives you stronger units. That kind of interdependence of systems is strategy gold. Ideology also interacts with resources in a way that is interesting, but I don't always like. It's cool that your over-all strategy is that tied to the terrain, but it can be frustrating as well. I want to play a supremacy game, but in 5 games have never started anywhere close to Firaxite and its a little frustrating to be making the big ideological decisions based on the luck of map generation.

Lesson: The biggest take-away for GC3 specifically is for their ideology I think. The more integrated it can be with the other game systems the better. It should change the way you play, not just be a list of bonuses.

While I agree with most of your thoughts, I disagree with happiness. While it does slow spamming cities, I actually don't have much of a problem with that. 

The only time it really comes into play is taking over other cities. That, I feel, is a bit harsh. However, it is pretty realistic. Taking over foreign cities will usually get you partisans and a populous that will try its best to thwart or at least slow you down. 

Even when the US took over Iraq with the express purpose of freeing them to form their own democracy was a nightmare. The US lost more troops after the war was "won" than when it actually fought armies.

The same could be said for Vietnam in that no where was "safe" behind the enemy lines.

Germany in WWII

Napoleon had to tie down about 1/2 his armies I think, just to keep supply lines running and hold cities. Spain was a nightmare for the French. 

The US Revolutionary War also had a lot of partisan hit and run raids.

Gal Civ 3 has the same feature essentially with approval. You take a hit on production, etc. the lower your approval. However, that is on a planet by planet basis. CIV V made it global, except for taking over a city and having a "cool down" period. It could also effect your regular cities if your happiness was too low. I like the city by city (planet by planet) dynamic myself. If anything, my core cities should be HAPPIER that I just took an enemy city.

Anyway, good thoughts on your part, as usual.

Quoting aaronofely, reply 1

 Hmm,, maybe you are talking about Sid's new game though.

That is affirmative. I have not tried GC3 Beta yet so cannot say how well it is currently doing

Fair enough, I honestly didn't find much good in the game that would have overshadowed the failing parts but truth be told there were some:

Exploration game

• I found well though out making the beginning of the game engaging and fun. The unit to explore steals style from other games but in a good way, can interact with the map via dig sites and finding resource drops while navigating the aline units and miasma (toxic clouds).
• Lesson learned: The first X of a 4X game needs to be engaging so it requires player interaction in a meaningful way. This is something where GC3 has a more difficult situation since space tends to be....well empty which is mostly not engaging. Maybe pirates, nebulae, and finding habitable planets in a fun way can help this

Carriers!

• Just carriers I know other CIV games and even other 4X games had this element as well but this game has them, they are beautifully drawn and can deliver serious punch with planes even though their combined presence is not entirely logical next to hover tanks
• Lesson learned: There is reason why so many like this element though I cannot point a finger in it easily. What I would suspect is that our culture and past experience from movies and space shooters have imprinted a sense of satisfaction when building and controlling these ships if for no other reason then to re-create our fond memories of them. Since GC3 taps into a lot of movie themes with ship designer and the concept it would probably be good if the carries mechanic could at least to some extent simulate that of Wing Commander, Star Wars and others. Do pilot wings get separate experience? (Yes they do in BE due to the mechanic ;))

Music

• It is well made and gives a great atmosphere to exploration game at least with its creepy theme, then changes in later stages
• Lesson learned: Never underestimate the power of music when creating atmosphere

Common alien foe

• They are the replacement of CIV 5 barbarians and are the natives of the planet. The are kinda like an impersonated Gaia with military units. On paper the concept is great - having an independent and centrally controlled force on the planet and although it did not seem to work as intended the concept is neat and the game feels exciting from the beginning on at least until you can wipe the floor with even the best of their units from mid-game on
• Lesson learned: This might probably only be something for future expansions but it is not a bad idea to have a huge opposing and omnipresent force posed against the players to slow them down in the beginning or make end-game interesting by attacking all players with almost unstoppable force forcing all CIVs to rally and make a final stand. Can you imagine that with a Precursor race or Drengin as a game mode ?

Civ 5 convinced me that Firaxis guys aren't insta-buys anymore.   BE confirmed it.

I've actually been quite pleased with Beyond Earth so far.

Naturally there are no shortage of game play issues. The AI is a disaster, spamming cities lets you dominate even on Apollo, the list goes on. Other big ones: Wonders are awful, trade routes are too powerful when internal, health is great in concept but all sorts of poorly executed, the victories can be wildly divergent in difficulty, and this is all after 25+ hours of play.

There are also flavor issues that bleed into making strategic decisions wildly against the game's core concepts. The AI, for instance, always goes for a single Affinity. Why? I'd rather just go for all of them at once. Suddenly I'm getting all of the benefits and unique buildings of every single affinity. The AI can't compete with my 1500 production per turn, my 1100 Science per turn, the list goes on.

Also, why do I have to go into the Replays menu to get game stats after I win? Nothing during game either? Beyond Earth pls.

All of that is fixable. Not everything is, though.

For instance, the problems created by a lot of Civ 5's core engine aren't going anywhere. 1 UPT is bad and should continue to feel bad. Even Jon Shafer himself said it was a bad design call. That compounds to create endless problems elsewhere, as has been thoroughly documented. I also doubt we're going to see a lot of fixes to what were clearly limitations in budget: Recanned messages and responses from Civ 5. "I can hear your people wailing from all the way over here. If you're not careful they might pack up and find a real country colony to live in."

Galactic Civilizations 3 is already going to laugh in the face of both Civ 5, Beyond Earth, and even Civilization 6 if they don't get their act together with a better engine.

That said, it's still fun. I'll no doubt sink countless more hours into it, especially with all of my friends who play. But until these bugs are ironed out we're going to have to have courtesy rules to make up for the mechanical shortcomings.

I played the demo as well, and from what I've seen it just feels like a mod to Civ V.

That would be fine as if it was a mod it would have been a good one: The music's good, the concept's good. However's gameplay is lacking a bit. Lots of content feels missing. Like people said, every civ looks the same. The colours make my eyes cry. Why is everything so muted? Playing Civ V after that feels like going to the kindergarden and seeing rainbows everywhere. The map feels small well. Maybe because of demo limitations, dunno. 

I don't think I will be buying it. If there are patches/expansions that address the numerous problems I might reconsider. And then I might only get the repackaged, all x-packs included, sale version, sorry

In the meantime, back to to GCIII or more Civ V...

HHHHHAAAAATTTTTEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

I enjoyed my first game, but the AI certainly didn't help.  I played on Apollo and won a domination victory on my first try.

I had one AI lose a war while having over 50 000 energy in the bank.  After the initial battle the AI would also just drip feed its new units into my army rather than trying to form a new front somewhere.  They also never allied with each other.

On the plus side the affinities played differently, and I liked how harmony could use the environment against its opponents .  Having to choose between the most powerful units and the most powerful buildings due to them both costing strategic resources also added depth.

These could both be added to gal civ 3.  Different sized ships and/or certain tech paths and/or ideologies could have advantages while fighting in asteroids/nebulas/near black holes.  And being able to spend strategic resources on buildings would make for interesting choices.

I also liked the aliens, they made the early game more interesting than choosing your build order and then pressing end turn a bunch of times.  Hopefully pirates will do something similar in galciv 3 and not be complete pushovers like civ 5 barbarians.

The real AI isn't in the game yet.

"The real AI isn't in the game yet."

This sounds as if there is a more capable AI underway for BE Very optimistic but this was also what many hoped in case of CIV5 and it never really came. Did they ever resolve the issue where ships could not move and attack in the same turn? Or limboing armies on your borders until they are taken down by ranged units? I think the game managed to pull of a half decent looking amphibious attack after the second expansion or so but even those formations where no match for a player who is just fooling around.

There should not be anything else more important to a strategy game then the capability of the enemy forces and that largely involves the AI. There is not much fun in beating a lobotomized mutant cousin of a StarCraft AI over and over again. Even better to go outside enjoy the sun and climb a tree or to.

There is no excuse for such a game to neglect the AI and even more impressive: most reviews simply ignored this flaw some renomable sources even stating that the AI is capable of handling the one unit per tile system well. I understand that GC3 will not use such a restriction so is not directly threatened by it nor by abundant landscape restrictions that make programming AI all the more difficult, but it has diplomacy and it will need to handle multiple fronts and be able to conduct coordinated and swift attacks from base game on, else it will simply not pose a serious enough threat to a turtle defense tactic. AI was one of the stronger aspects of GC2 but it also (naturally) had its limitations, hopefully GC3 will not neglect improving this element.

I'm sorry, I was mistakenly referring to the Galciv3 AI not being in yet.  Not BE.

Yes, jog one mile for every hour of gaming! Or at least a mile in the mornings..without headphones.

DARCA endorsed. ;- )

I actually just got back from jogging and it was simply fantastic... you guys need to taste the autumn before winter hits the door

I was contemplating whether I should fire up BE one more time as I got back, but decided I will rather browse around on the forums and the site of the Indie games I am looking forward to then play some Warhammer 40k. Not keen on the "experience" again

"I was mistakenly referring to the Galciv3 AI not being in yet.  Not BE."

Can't say anything of GC3 yet as I haven't tried the beta, wouldn't jump into conclusions if I did, you guys are surely more aware of the stance of the AI. I just hope that BE will remind the DEVs here on some of these key aspects and set a warning that even high budget and production values can result to a 4X game that sucks if the emphasis is not on the right place.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OgUAuKuoy7o

yo wanna big muscle?

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/the_most_hated_man_in_bodybuilding

Personally I liked the one tile per unit aspect of Civ5 it made combat much more fun than previous CIV's.  It felt to me more like running tactical combat which I like.  Sure there are AI problems which needs to be addresses in CIV5 but after all the updates and DLC it is a decent game and for me the funnest CIV.  I have not played BE and will probably wait a year before getting it like I did CIV5 and CIV4.

The one unit per tile system was a truly nice concept - Situation is more readable for the player and also reminded me on Panzer General a favourite of mine utilising the same concept.

BE is largely the same game with some neat change to the scenario, affinities and tech tree but if you disliked the AI in CIV 5 it will surely not win you over on that field

If you wait out an add-on or two it can surely gain on value just as Civ 5 did after brave new world - maybe the alien bugs will finally get the treatment promised in the beginning... that would be enough for me to buy the expansion but feel that additional CIVs would not bring much to the table

BE is pretty bad right now, but I'm sure that it will improve.

Civ5 was quite bad at release, but it improved quite a bit afterwards so its decent now.

Elemental was quiet bad at release, but the LH:FE is decent now.

etc.

These games nowadays just seem to usually release in a bad state then get improved.  The developers seem to like to concentrate on shiny, not-so-important things that sound sexy in preview articles, but don't spend nearly enough time on core areas like AI or having economic systems that work properly.  I get why (people buy games because they hear about cool stuff, not because it has a good AI), but it does kind of suck.  Hopefully GCIII will be the exception here.

Anyway, I think that BE will be good in about 6 months to a year.  Most of the stuff that is wrong with it is the usual stuff that is messed up at release in games like this.  The only real head scratcher is the complete lack of differentiation between factions.  I get that they want to push Affinities more than factions, but still, making your opponents be completely bland was a big mistake.  Civ4 was so good in this respect, and look where we are now.

Well I look at it this way I am currently playing AOW3 and Warlock2 for my fantasy TBS. CIV5 for my normal TBS and the GALCIV3 beta for my space TBS. And Divinity for my RPG Turn Based game. so I'm covered for a while. 

Fallen Enchantress was kind of a bland ugly graphics game. It was a failure in the beginning but did improve but it was still just not that good IMO.  All my friends that tried it did not care much for it. and now that AOW3 is out which for us blows FE as well as many other Fantasy TBS out of the water all my friends uninstalled FE and play AOW3 and some also play Warlock2 as well. I have room on my HD so I kept it and every once in a while go back to it to see if it improved.  

I've had decent fun out of BE. My first request would be for more very different maps; my second would be for different aliens (and graphics). I realize that's probably too much investment for Firaxis to put into the basic game, but I hope a modder (or a content extension) will.