Why I may never play a CIV gm again after nearly 20 yrs

Hi all tho my name may be new i'm not, I have to say "conquests" is at least for a single person desiring to play alone, a WASTE

Am i right or wrong the game is still CIVILIZATION, well after generating umpteen million worlds at avg regent level with all things random Ive seen a multitude of inequities that turn the game more into a war game than a game in which you create a lasting CIV

examples..I always play huge worlds hoping beyond hope i can begin to explore and create a civ without immediate war, this never seems to be the case tho in EVERY random generated world the AI sets you up to fail , example starting as americans, but within 3 turns of starting running into another civ like zulu's scout FOR chrissake i intentionally design a world to BE left alone yet the ai either packs all 7 civs next to you or places you on an island.. with no hope

another gripe is ship building what is the purpose of being a seafaring nation who can build a curragh, when a curragh cant carry anything ! you still have to reseaearch map making to move to a nearby island and just to get it takes an avg 30-70 turns without getting lucky whereas in Civ2 building a small ship or map making was a 1st level tech... they have exploresrs but by the time you reach the tech they are worthless! Another 1 sided AI thing is Scouts in any game you start god forbid your playing against the arabs or russians all the ai does is give them techs 10-20 turns in you meet 1 and they have every ancient tech ! then theres barbarians on almost all levels you cant do much of anything without them just popping up out of no where in droves, and Why have a major barbarian assualt setup to hit in every game when you hit construction ?

I'd like to see a level playing field wher you can build and play without mass barbarians or instant crowding by other races..

HMM new diplomacy where ?? they never to this day respect your borders..yet even when you respect thiers , even if playing against india your faced with mass armies...not everyone just wants to play civ aas a war game!

Yes we can design our own rules or set up barbarian agressoiveness , but Te AI places the civs why cant it do them equidistant and o change the race with scout so they have an equal chance of getting barbarians as a teech or city, just the fact they have them should be advantage alone

My point here is that in conquests they've eliminated the single player fun of the game yes the multi and various scenarios are fun, but i for 1 would like to play a gm on an avg lvel where i can go from start to finish without rebuilding a world or replaying a turn... things lihaving a civ declare war then just walk in with a conscript warrior and have him win vs an elite pikeman really irks me. And why is it that now when we do get a "warrior" from goody huts its salways the same warrior in other versions you occasionally got a horseman or archer it was random. or heeres another why let the AI generate a new city fromm goody huts that start with a high population ie 4-5 in a city.. by time you hit next turn half have already starved

i just see no fun left in the gm the Ai in single player is just given too many advantages.. and saDLY ITS TURNED ME OFF FROM BEING A DIEHARD CIV FAN TO NOT CARING IF I EVER PLAY wheres the fun in creating a self generated world? the AI should do that with a level playing field, at least in lower to mid levels. every gm ive had to "cheat" by starting over or viewing terrain 1st

these things need to chg

[Kuciwalker]

Why not just play with fewer civs? Then you'll get plenty of time to expand.

Also, set aggression to lowest.

[Capt Dizle]

hoppy,

I feel your pain.

jt

[Capt Dizle]

Really I smell a troll trap and I ain't biting.

[Jaguar]

Play with fewer civs than the map size's maximum number, and set AI aggressiveness to least aggressive.

sky thats tho poin t tho in other version the distribution was spread out more evenly even with 8 civs theres no real reason on a huge map that you should run into 2-3 other civs in 1st 10 turns.. yet this seems to happen regularly..

sure less civs easier but my gripe falls more in no matter homany civs why is it that the ai always gravitates toward you.. ie sets many civs near you,,, has ai gravitate is citybuilding toward you etcc

what i was trying to say is the random generator should at least set you with a chance to survive Ive seen world created where you play romans on a huge content yet no where on that continent is iron available.

and based on the current tech tree design and lack of sea travel it could be in the ADs before you even have the abilty to travel to another island... what im saying is seafaring WAS around 4000 yrs ago why in this gm does it now take so long to effectively get it you concieveably must research 3-4 tech before having basic sea travel. in Civ2 this wasnt the case

playing less civs is the easy way out, id like to see better refinements in the AI and techs

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by hoppy43000
sky thats tho poin t tho in other version the distribution was spread out more evenly even with 8 civs theres no real reason on a huge map that you should run into 2-3 other civs in 1st 10 turns.. yet this seems to happen regularly..

sure less civs easier but my gripe falls more in no matter homany civs why is it that the ai always gravitates toward you.. ie sets many civs near you,,, has ai gravitate is citybuilding toward you etcc

what i was trying to say is the random generator should at least set you with a chance to survive Ive seen world created where you play romans on a huge content yet no where on that continent is iron available.

and based on the current tech tree design and lack of sea travel it could be in the ADs before you even have the abilty to travel to another island... what im saying is seafaring WAS around 4000 yrs ago why in this gm does it now take so long to effectively get it you concieveably must research 3-4 tech before having basic sea travel. in Civ2 this wasnt the case

playing less civs is the easy way out, id like to see better refinements in the AI and techs

I don't think I am understanding you. What is your actual problem? Is it you have a hard time expanding or what?

[WarpStorm]

Firaxis intentionally puts players close together so that they start interacting early.

[CerberusIV]

Read a few history books. Why do you think Jericho had walls circa 7000BC?

It's called human nature. If you don't want to fight don't play civ.

[Antrine]

//wheres the fun in creating a self generated world?//QUOTE_hoppy43000

Hoppy there is immense fun in creating world after world...
And the AI definately needs to get a lot better, so it is as challenging as chess. Think strategy, an intricate epic war game.

If you require a more easy going adventure, learn to use the 'editor' for to accomplish the same. It's there, it works. Make some up and trade with another for to have 'a blind' if you like it that way.

I only play the way I want on my own modded games. If you are going to cry for anything, scream for ever more editor options until all there is an 'giant intuitive cosmic game editor' that spits out whatever one wants. Join the choir, I am already in the front row singing off-key.

Sincerely,
Antrine

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by hoppy43000
Hi all tho my name may be new i'm not, I have to say "conquests" is at least for a single person desiring to play alone, a WASTE

First of all let me congratulate you for being a DL

Am i right or wrong the game is still CIVILIZATION, well after generating umpteen million worlds at avg regent level with all things random Ive seen a multitude of inequities that turn the game more into a war game than a game in which you create a lasting CIV

Indeedy it is still CIV. And do you know what civs have been doing for the past 10000 years? Yes, that's right, they've spent their whole time beating the crap out of each other.

another gripe is ship building what is the purpose of being a seafaring nation who can build a curragh, when a curragh cant carry anything ! you still have to reseaearch map making to move to a nearby island and just to get it takes an avg 30-70 turns without getting lucky whereas in Civ2 building a small ship or map making was a 1st level tech... they have exploresrs but by the time you reach the tech they are worthless! Another 1 sided AI thing is Scouts in any game you start god forbid your playing against the arabs or russians all the ai does is give them techs 10-20 turns in you meet 1 and they have every ancient tech ! then theres barbarians on almost all levels you cant do much of anything without them just popping up out of no where in droves, and Why have a major barbarian assualt setup to hit in every game when you hit construction ?

Firstly, the point of carraghs might be just "exploration units" so you can get contact with more civs, and discover more land so you'll already have in mind what to settle later
Secondly, IIRC those massive barb attacks happen when another Civ SPOILERenters the Midieval ageSPOILER. You hitting Construction would just be a coincidence.

I'd like to see a level playing field wher you can build and play without mass barbarians or instant crowding by other races..

Go play SimCity. (BTW you can turn Barbs off, AND you can set the game to less Civs)

HMM new diplomacy where ?? they never to this day respect your borders..yet even when you respect thiers , even if playing against india your faced with mass armies...not everyone just wants to play civ aas a war game!

It's worth repeating that history is war and you should expect it. If you want to survive, build up a healthy defence. It's possible to do that and STILL kick ass and take names in the cultural arena.

Yes we can design our own rules or set up barbarian agressoiveness , but Te AI places the civs why cant it do them equidistant and o change the race with scout so they have an equal chance of getting barbarians as a teech or city, just the fact they have them should be advantage alone

Wha? Could you rephrase that?

My point here is that in conquests they've eliminated the single player fun of the game yes the multi and various scenarios are fun, but i for 1 would like to play a gm on an avg lvel where i can go from start to finish without rebuilding a world or replaying a turn... things lihaving a civ declare war then just walk in with a conscript warrior and have him win vs an elite pikeman really irks me. And why is it that now when we do get a "warrior" from goody huts its salways the same warrior in other versions you occasionally got a horseman or archer it was random. or heeres another why let the AI generate a new city fromm goody huts that start with a high population ie 4-5 in a city.. by time you hit next turn half have already starved

My, that's a mouthful
Actually, they kinda strengthened the Sci/Cultural side of Civ with C3C--now, GLs are divided between SGLs and MGLs, and only SGLs can rush Wonders. (And you can get a GL through more ways than just a war! )

i just see no fun left in the gm the Ai in single player is just given too many advantages.. and saDLY ITS TURNED ME OFF FROM BEING A DIEHARD CIV FAN TO NOT CARING IF I EVER PLAY wheres the fun in creating a self generated world? the AI should do that with a level playing field, at least in lower to mid levels. every gm ive had to "cheat" by starting over or viewing terrain 1st

You're just not playing well enough. It is VERY possible to play with Builder style and still win--check out the Strategy Forum (esp. the topped "MUST READ" thread) for hints and tips. It will improve your game by a full order of magnitude, at least.

It is a new game (or a new expansion pack onto one at least), it's going to have new things to get used to. Keep on trying, and remember to check out the strat forum

mrmitchell

[pauli]

mod the rules. jack up map size and civ spacing. that will give you plenty of time to expand.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Read a few history books. Why do you think Jericho had walls circa 7000BC?

It's called human nature. If you don't want to fight don't play civ.

I thought the earliest cities were around 3000 or 4000 BC in Mesopotamia

guys you misunderstand I KNOW the game ive won all the way to sid mode

my issue is with the game design when you create random worlds try it in CIV 1 or 2 its a bit different

it isnt because i want an easier game thats easy i just want there to be a level wherein all civs are equal at start and thruout game rather than the computer controlled 1's having advantages, like arabs always getting techs,... contrary to popular belief that level doesnt exist.. you set any game up the way you want it, BUT nmy point is EVERY computer generated random world set you up so that the computer civs have distinct advantages, unless you pkay at the most basic level.

what i tire of is starting game after game

for example pauli i shouldnt have to jack up the rules, ive already chosen the largest possible maPB THEREFORE SPACING GENERALLY SHOULD BE MORE THAN A CIV 2 TURNS AWAY OR YOUR ENTIRE CIV ON AN ISLAND THE SIZE OFYOUR THUMB.. if i were playing sid level then yes but im not

[Antrine]

Funny I think generally the AI's are wimps. And on a map 360 by 306 with eight civs including yourself equally spaced out, I defy you even find another civ in less than 20 turns.

As far as, 'jacking up the rules', no it is a PRIVILAGE TO FINALLY HAVE AN EDITOR WORTH SOMETHING. Modders are not jacking up the rules, we are blissfully creating something you should be waiting in line to play.

Anyway, I say complain in the better direction, lobby for more choices on the start-up screens with a 'save routine' so once you find the mix right for you, you can keep randomly generating what you want. And I assure you, only so many others will even bother to agree with your choices and go on with their own, which is really the valid point.

Sincerely,

[MattPilot]

Notice that there is a Rule set under the scenarios where NO CIV has any specific traits and ALL are created equal.

Try that.

Also, why are you whinning about war making? If anything, its you who's starting the war. I have no problem whatsoever going to the modern age without a single war. Even when i'm surrounded by neighbors. How do i do that? I give in to their demands. If you don't like their demand, well then your doomed for war. Either stand up for what you want, or back down and live in peace.

Though personally i prefer the war making and wish the game had more tactical depth in the modern age (like making all modern motorized units as "wheeled" <- like the early catapult). Gives it the extra umph.

well matt 1st off im not playing a scenerio therefore the option you speak of is not available. 2ndly. I do not play the game just to make war as you do, i prefer diplomatic games just my style for 200 yrs america rarely if ever entered a war unless it was attacked 1st

survival doesnt always mean war So no im not the 1 causing the wars

antrine i just did a start of a game where my civ and 2 others were in fact less than 10 squares from me on what was a gm with following parameters

regent level, huge map, 8 civs random continent and temp.


this is far from unusual it tends to happen frequently

[okblacke]

Nearly 20 years? What were you playing in 1984? Empire? I missed that one, though I did play "Hammurabi" as a wee lad in the very late '70s.

Games have come a long way, haven't they?

The cool thing about Civ games is that if you like them--not any specific Civ game, but just the concept of strategic empire building--there are soooo many options around. Even within specific Civ games, there's so much more flexibility about the rules that it's almost hard to justify complaining about them. (Some people need no justification, of course.)

It sounds to me like you're a similar player to myself, or to the way I used to play. I just want to build my empire in peace. In Civ 2, my dream start was a sizeable island I was alone on, with as little interaction with the AI as possible. In retrospect, it seems kind of dumb: I'd either go through the entire game to space launch without ever interacting with another society, or I'd have tanks and rails by the time I ran into anybody. But I had fun. Peaceful fun.

Civ 3 does not work that way at all. You have to interact aggressively (not violently, but aggressively) with others to stay in the game, except at the lower levels of difficulty. Conquests makes this even more vital by reducing the strategic and luxury resources. Trade, trade, trade, kiss a little ass, and you can have peace, at least for long stretches. If someone attacks you, it'll be all the easier for you to get others to gang up on him.

As for the AI expanding toward you: yes, it does. Just as you should expand toward it. If you want to dominate, you need to choke off your rivals' expansion. It can still be done peacefully, but it needs to be done.

It's not a perfect model, but you do have the opportunity now to express opinions on alternatives for Civ 4.

[ok]

[Antrine]

Well, Hoppy unless you are willing to avail yourself of the 'editor' then as the random start-ups are now configured for the general public you are correct.

The huge map you are referring to is set default 160 by 160, in order expand it to up to 360 by 360 you will have to use the editor. And note 360 by 360 is over five time the playing area, which could routinely put the other civs 50 tiles away. And I take no chances about this for you can also set the spacing betwixt each civs starting point. And further do it manually afterwards.

Generate enough maps and you will not clearly remember which map is what, so you will be effectively playing blind, except to know it is a 360 square map and no one is close to anyone else.

I remember when all these choices were a fairy tale wish list and hey Christmas is past again...

Fun gaming,

[EnduringBlue]

You do not need to be in a specific scenario to adjust barbarian aggressiveness, you can set up your own map with the editor, change the settings, close the minimap so you don't see anything you don't want to see, and then generate a new random map and you can have a new map with all of your real issues addressed.

you can also select a generic "no civ specific traits" setting when setting up any game at all, so that you really can have everyone equal.

Many players have problems with various default settings, that is what the editor is for. you can change the variables so you have your own you-friendly game.

you can choose which civs can be alongside you in a game (there are 31 after all). no expansionist civs means no scouts beating you to the good stuff.

or even just leaving out zulu and aztecs, for example, would cut down on the fast-moving civs who tend to be most aggressive the earliest. i, too, am a builder and not a natural war-gamer.

there are also very many high players who have real problems with the tech tree timing of naval exploration. i would suggest a default of going into your editor and making galley available with mapmaking and doing away with curragh altogether. (i miss civ2's triremes constantly)

now you can't get a city out of a goodyhut, but you do stand a chance of getting a settler out of one, as long as you as you do not already have a settler on the map and don't have any in production. if you change what your city is working on for a turn, you will find yourself getting an occasional settler out of the huts.

resource placement is a risk. unless you don't want a truly random map, you can't guarantee there will be iron on your continent, and that's a risk you'll just have to take each time you play.

one other thing: if you go into the editor on your Huge map you can manually increase the min distance between starting locations. the default is 20. playing on archipelago also sometimes gives you a nice sized island basically to yourself, too.

I think there are really things you can try to make your game something you will enjoy more.

[Standup]

for 200 yrs america rarely if ever entered a war unless it was attacked 1st

mmhh...

but sticking with the game i have to say i enjoy conquests much more than previous versions mainly because until now the 'builder' game was less rewarding to play.

I've played quite a few games now and if anything the Civs seem to be further away and most games i'm taking full advantage of the seafaring trait.

I do seem to have more problems with resources though and how much rarer they seem to be. Not sure if they've been tweaked or i've just been unlucky ? One game despite owning 50% of the land mass i had no saltpeter, iron, coal, rubber or oil.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by skywalker


I thought the earliest cities were around 3000 or 4000 BC in Mesopotamia

Mostly true, but Jericho in Israel and Catal Huyuk in Anatolia were first by a long shot.

You'd never know it with the way history is taught in most schools. It always starts with the Sumerians.

[steven8r]

EnduringBlue, I've gotten a city out of a hut before. I remember because it really peeved me about its location--it was totally in the wrong spot . I remember thinking, "Why couldn't it have been a Settler, or even Angry Warriors?" This was w/ PTW. That might have changed in C3C, however.

Back OT,
Hoppy, you could edit a mod to allow Curraghs to carry a unit, or make Galleys available w/ Alphabet (or the Wheel, or whichever tech you think appropriate.)

Without using the editor, there is a good use for Curraghs. Explore. Especially since Communications Trading comes so much later, it's easier to contact other civs by sea--more movement than on land. The more civs you know, the more techs become available sooner--they research some, you get others and trade them. The more civs that know a tech, the lower the price. If you get a tech that no one else has, you can sell it to everyone you know.

I've managed to play a couple of epic games w/ C3C as a builder. Yes, it got crowded quickly and the AI was all around me, but I managed to be peaceful until the very end (I chose to go to war to start my GA).

The scarcity of resources makes early exploration and trading VERY important in this latest iteration of civ.

As a fellow civer, I hope you find some enjoyment from the game. If not, there's always Civ2 until Civ4 becomes available.

Steven

[Sarxis]

There's quite a few things that can be changed by the editor.

It can be worthwhile to learn how to use it for those who don't like the vanilla flavor of the game.

[vmxa1]

hoppy43000 you are correct that it is now very hard to not use war as a means of winning the game. I feel this is due to the change in resources and luxs distribution.

If one civ lands in a spot to get the key resources and had enough lux to pacify the citizen they can become a killer.

Those that do not must aquire them and they can really only do it by taking the land.

I did manage to get to industrial age without a war in just one game.

This was not the case in PTW, you could build peacefully at times, other than OCC.

You could try to generate a map and place the civs where you want them and redistribute resource to appease all, but that sppoils the game as you know the map.

VXm, thats why i truly feel we need a CIV4, c3c is a nice addd on but the majority of its improvements, scenerios and editor aside seem to make the game more like a war game.. than a better version of civ at least in my humble opinion of the vanilla gm.. theredidnt seem to be the diplomatic improvements, nor the addition of zones of control as with SMAC which was talked about...

and your right i could use the editor but isnt the fun of random, the discovery i w2ant a "Smarter AI not a more agressive 1 and 1 who basically stands by his word.. unless you play the most basic lvl that rarely happens

[dexters]

Originally posted by hoppy43000
sky thats tho poin t tho in other version the distribution was spread out more evenly even with 8 civs theres no real reason on a huge map that you should run into 2-3 other civs in 1st 10 turns.. yet this seems to happen regularly..

sure less civs easier but my gripe falls more in no matter homany civs why is it that the ai always gravitates toward you.. ie sets many civs near you,,, has ai gravitate is citybuilding toward you etcc

what i was trying to say is the random generator should at least set you with a chance to survive Ive seen world created where you play romans on a huge content yet no where on that continent is iron available.

and based on the current tech tree design and lack of sea travel it could be in the ADs before you even have the abilty to travel to another island... what im saying is seafaring WAS around 4000 yrs ago why in this gm does it now take so long to effectively get it you concieveably must research 3-4 tech before having basic sea travel. in Civ2 this wasnt the case

playing less civs is the easy way out, id like to see better refinements in the AI and techs

You're playing regent? I've never had much of a problem being in too many wars in that level.

You need a strong military, even if you don't use it. You need it as a deterrant. You should be PREPARED to go to war. That's the key. If you have a strong military, other civs will leave you alone and you can be in your own little corner to build a great trading empire to your hearts content.

You may also be interested in my style of play, which is pretty much a pragmatic builder (war only if need be) type game. I hate large unproductive empires and would rather build myself, and also use other means to control the world. But it's not for everyone. (Click on the Machiavellian Doctrine link on my siggy to know more)

In anycase, I find it kind of weird that you find the new C3C so painful it's destroying your enjoyment. Was it a jump for PTW to C3C or vanilla Civ3 to C3C? If it is the latter, there may be a bit of a gameplay shock since you missed the changes in PTW. Your complaints about barbhuts and victory chances seem really minor. The spearman winning v. tank thing have always been there.

The AI is generally fair under regent and only has 3 real cheats. One thing you need to learn to how the AI thinks. Once you understand the basic mechanics of how the game works, it will be very apparent to you how easy it is to beat the AI and how all the advantages you thought you saw were just illusions. Getting cities from goody huts is very much tied to expansionist trait, which guarantees goodies. If you're not expansionist, don't expect cities or too many goodies from goody huts.

Edit2: I've not have to replay a turn for ages. You have to make a mental barrier for yourself not to give into the temptation of reloading. The only time I've reloaded from an autosave is if I leave a game for some extended period of time and forgot where I last left off.

[MattPilot]

using the editor does NOT mean you do NOT have random maps. Do you understand that?

If you only change the rules, but leave the map blank, then you just go to the scenario folder, select the rule set you want, and then its going to load up a screen just like any other 'epic' game, where you choose your random settings <- the only difference is, your using different game rules.

[WarpStorm]

"Si vis pacem para bellum!" (If you want peace, prepare for war!). The AI does not like to go to war with players it thinks is stronger. This does not mean that you have to go to war, just that you are prepared for it. I've had a lot of relatively peaceful games including a few where the only battles were against barbs.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by hoppy43000
for 200 yrs america rarely if ever entered a war unless it was attacked 1st

But that's irrelevent. THey still had to DEFEND, and you seem to be wishing for a game where you don't have to fight at all.