AU501 - Post-game comments

[Theseus]

Well put, but I still disagree.

Map generation and the RNG for resources (etc.) require the player to maintain something of a 'balance' in civ development, to account for the vagaries that might arise, and a toolkit of methodologies / tactics to address whatever challenge is thus posed.

The same can be said of Plague. As I messed around with some replays of 501 over the weekend, I experimented with adding to my toolkit:
* Pillage all roads to the affected town.
* Disband the town.
* Disband the units in the town.

... and I'm sure there are many other responses. Mine were mostly about ensuring that the Plague did not spread to a critical Wonder-producing city, but there are certainly other reasons to address its arisal.

As you point out, bad stuff can happen, and in such a way that it increases strategic depth... so it is with the Plague, just not in a very pleasant or predictable way.

[nbarclay]

If plague itself does not add useful strategic dimensions to the game, the existence of ways to mitigate its impact does not fundamentally alter that fact. The whole thing is essentially just a sideshow, a distraction.

To me, a lot of the beauty of Civ 3 is that it avoids the temptation of featuritis. Virtually everything in the game plays a central role connected to one or more of the victory conditions. (The one serious exception that I can think of off the top of my head is pollution and the need to clean it up.) Elements like resource scarcity and the ramifications of culture add complexity to the path to reaching the goals, but they make the strategic aspects of the game deeper without going off in left field and creating subplots that have little to do with the ultimate objectives.

To me, plague is a classic example of featuritis. Even to the extent that the battle to deal with plague might be viewed by some as an interesting subplot, its effect on the core goals of the game is essentially just to throw in a random monkey wrench every now and then. It could be a worthwhile optional feature for players who enjoy it, but I don't think it belongs in the main core of the game. So I think the developers made the right decision in having plague disabled by default but making it something that players who want it can enable.

Nathan

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The real key to strategic depth is to take a decision that would otherwise be a no-brainer and make players think about it. If a feature makes players think more, it adds strategic depth. If it just replaces one no-brainer with another, or if it causes damage without actually changing what is good strategy, no meaningful strategic depth is added.

I also think your argument is well reasoned, and I don't disagree in general with what you're saying. As game elements go, plague is simply an annoying distraction and I didn't mind not seeing it at all in AU501. Give it a little more depth and it might have some meaning. But it doesn't really bother me enough to worry about (which is more than I can say for disease, which really ticks me off!).

I do think though that we need to accept certain things thrown in our path by the developers for no apparent strategic reason....because (to the possibly limited extent that Civ3 is trying to present an approximation of realism) "luck" does play a role in the development of the world, and sometimes a dramatic role. If William had been killed at the Battle of Hastings before Harold, how would our world look today? Possibly vastly different as England may never have been "Frenchified". Luckily in Civ3, the useless random elements such as plague are just that - useless. So they don't really affect the game outcome.

[Theseus]

Nathan: You win.

Yeah, technically, logically, and by all things that are elegant about Civ3, you are right.

Mark me down on the side of: Sometimes life just f*cks with you, whether as an individual or an empire, and you just gotta deal. So be it.

And I kind of like that that is part of this experience ( Can we say Black Plague in RL?)(Gamewise, I keep the , but...).

I am... conflicted. I buy your intellecual construct, but, much like I used to argue with Vel, Civ is not just a regular GAME, with its own internal logic... modeling RL inherently comes with messiness, and thus a lack of controllable factors. INHERENT.

[Gotta go to bed... Amy (supra-controller ) demands it... interesting discussion, though, TBC]

[Jaybe]

Plague as set in the With Plague scenario is weak. Three plagues at 100-strength (instead of 80) might be worthy of note.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Dominae
1. What did you learn about the power of Seafaring?
2. About Civ3 in general?
3. Was there anything you would have done differently?
4. Which civ gave you the most trouble, and why?
5. What did you think of the Plague?
6. How did the AU mod affect gameplay?
7. Did you find any Easter eggs?!

1. I not so much learned, rather confirmed, the dire need for seafaring to be hit squarely with the nerf stick. I posted some numbers in a thread a while back, Catt's I think, and after a game which shows the trait at its best I am truly scared. My DAR3 was 2 turns long; all civs discovered on a large map by 1100BC is insane. When a Curragh sank many moons after all the civs were discovered I did a double take. These things sink......wtf?

2. Um, this was my first game with 1.15, and the first game of Conquests I have completed, so I think I'll mention the FP. Palace bumping has been nerfed as an side effect of the new rules. The new situation requires more practice to get as smooth at it as I was at bumping.

3. Going on from 2 I'd say my handling of the Sumerian land was clumsy. I should have built the UN several turns earlier than I did. One particular thing to look at further is the new specialists.

4. None

5. It sucked. I subscribe to the featuritis comment from earlier...........such events have no place in the game IMO. That's only my opinion though, so don't shout at me.

[DrSpike]

Regarding the resource distribution if I may wade in, I think the current situation is broken, and Catt pointed me to some evidence that tentatively indicates it is not meant to be the way it is now. As such IMO in a general sense the scenario designer might be advised not to exacerbate the situation, and maybe should even consider moving the goalposts back somewhere closer to where they were.

As regards this specific game I wasn't really that bothered by the setup, but it did contribute to me going for the UN. Again, that isn't a detrimental comment on the scenario, I think I'll do that in many games if things stay the same as they are now.

Ultimately designers, quite correctly, aren't going to want to move those goalposts back if they think things will stay as they are now. Hopefully the official patch will resolve the situation.

[Dominae]

DrSpike, I've been reading your reports intently as they've trickled in over the course of the day. I must say: well done! I get the feeling you should perhaps move up to Demigod (that's what the "sigh, this was too easy" reaction usually means).


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ultimately designers, quite correctly, aren't going to want to move those goalposts back if they think things will stay as they are now. Hopefully the official patch will resolve the situation.

That's right. When I created the scenario I was under the impression that resource scarcity was an intended feature of Conquests, hence the sub-goal of this course. Obviously if it's a bug and not a feature, future AU scenarios will not be as...harsh (if that's the right word).


Dominae

[DrSpike]

I think you were on the second wave, so you wont have seen much of my comments/games, as I lost interest around that time. However I played Civ3 a great deal upon its release. Additionally, I am a long time civver and thus reasonably decent with a following wind.

As such I'll play any level, and for private recreactional games (ooh that sounds ) I do indeed play Demigod or Deity.

However, for games such as this the fun lies in the comparison. I knew only a handful of players would play Demigod/Deity. And in Civ3 the different levels have to handled so differently there can be no real comparison.

The difficulty level makes no real difference to me, since the challenge is still there to play a good game given the settings. Furthermore, the skills required to be good at all levels (well, at least Monarch-Sid) are a worthy thing to hone in themselves. Sure Monarch is easier in absolute terms, but it is just as hard to test the extreme limits at Monarch as it is as Sid, even if I haven't had the pleasure of that so far.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Theseus

Mark me down on the side of: Sometimes life just [deleted] with you, whether as an individual or an empire, and you just gotta deal. So be it.

Whether players like having the messiness of life reflected in a game or prefer something a bit cleaner is essentially an aesthetic matter, a matter of taste. It is not something there is really a "right" or "wrong" answer to, other than that if designers want to satisfy both types of tastes, they need to make the random elements that make a mess out of players' plans without really contributing toward the central strategy of the game optional. With the messiness of life available but optional, players could decide for ourselves what we consider fun and what we consider just annoying or a waste of time.

By the way, for those who might be interested, disease can be eliminated in the editor by unchecking the Causes Disease box for flood plains, jungle, and marsh. Pollution can't actually be eliminated to the best of my knowledge, but the worker time required to clean it up can be reduced to 1/24 of what it is by default.

Nathan

[Catt]

Originally posted by Catt
Thanks for comments om tech trading early! I have thoughts to share on the subject, but not at the moment. Also, I'll be away from 'Poly for several days -- hope those who finish in the meantime and visit this thread enjoyed the game.

Just back to 'Poly after some time away and still too worn out to post anything intelligible. Nice to see the game is still being played and debated

Catt

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Dominae


That's right. When I created the scenario I was under the impression that resource scarcity was an intended feature of Conquests, hence the sub-goal of this course. Obviously if it's a bug and not a feature, future AU scenarios will not be as...harsh (if that's the right word).

Dom, you'd probably be interested to know about the Demigod game Lethe set up in the strategy forum a few days ago. There were slightly fewer than the normal number of civs for a large map so it was easier to secure territory. Lethe assures me the resource dirstibution was random. By the time I got to the industrial age I had 10% of the map (4th largest civ in area), and had no iron, no saltpeter and no coal within my borders despite having all terrain types. And it was continents, so there were no convenient little islands that held these resources to grab either!

So in answer to the question "was the AU501 resource distribution realistic and reasonable within the context fo C3C?", I would again say yes on both counts. The AU501 distribution was a lot more sympathetic than in this current game!

[lethe]

It's the second save that is attached in post #4. (I replaced it when I realized that it was a nightmare, not utopia.)

You can read all about it in this thread

[Catt]

Sorry all, RL is just kicking my 4ss right now. Although it may seem like I dropped out of sight, I've found the time to read threads every few days but no time for posting (I feel a little guilty since I posed a question and haven't come back to put in my $0.02).

AU 501 sure did seem to draw in a lot of players and it's great to see so many different DARs from so many different players!

Catt

[vmxa1]

Hope you get it under control and post away.