Are all Conquests like this?

[alexman]

I finally started my first Conquest scenario yesterday. I had been saving the Conquests to enjoy after the initial C3C bugs were resolved, and 1.15 seemed like a good patch.

Well, I played the first 7 turns of the Rise of Rome conquest on Deity and then I quit.

Why?

I played as Rome, and on turn 1 I bought the workers of every civ in exchange for a military alliance against Carthage. They gave my all of their gold and workers in exchange for allowing them to help me with my war!

On turn 4 I met the Skythians, who had contact with nobody else, despite sharing a border with the Persians. I sold contacts to the Skythians to everyone for all their gold and maps again.

On turn 6 I conquered Carthago. Evidently, Carthage, like Rome, starts with an Army, but fills it with just one Numidian Merc and leaves it sitting in the capital. What could have been a great battle of my 3-Legionary Army against their 3-Numidian merc Army, ended as a slaughter of their single unit.

Are all conquests this bad? Didn't anybody catch these things before they were released?
If these things had been caught during the beta testing period, I bet we would have a better AI for the epic game as well.

I guess to get more enjoyment I needed to role play more and use fewer exploits against the AI. But when, for example, the capital of Macedon is Athens (should be Pella, BTW - Athens is not even in Macedonia) I was having a hard time treating the scenario as anything but another random game.

[Inverse Icarus]

in the napoleonic scenario, you could trade a MPP with other civs for a ton of their cities, and win on turn 1, without even moving a unit. well, you could in C3C 1.0, i dunno if they changed that.

the AI is horrible at the conquests.

[vmxa1]

After reading so many exploits I skipped the conquest.

[pvzh]

Well, they are all like that.

I played more: Mesopotamia, The Middle Ages, Age of Discovery. Each of them needs great amount of work to be anything enjoyable.

I spent lots of time rebalancing and re-editing all these scenarios, but realised that some of them are beyond any repair because AI just does not know how to meet objectives and cannot be made to meet objectives.

Out of all I think only Mesopotamia can be worked in something playable (without Wonder victory obviously) and, maybe, Sengoku (needs, removal of regicide, probably, have not tried it yet) because they are the closest to epic game. REX, research, smash units/cities. AI's are ok at that.

The Middle Ages have regicide which put all AI's in constan REX, and in part "idiotic" (auto-razing everything after death of 2-3 kings: even wonders and probably treasure units) and "crusade" (the fun part that undoable by AI).

The Age of Discovery is even worse. The whole point of the scenario is bringing treasures from the New World. After numerous attempts I failed to encourage and/or facilitate AI's to do so at any decent rate. I played it like 3 times to test out different stuff and each replay gave me 1-2 treasure-picked-up events by ALL AI and 0-1 actually brought to europe. Just sad, very sad.

Edit: plus all of them are littered with stupid mistakes like harbours are not seafaring, or unit does not have strategy selected, or does not have properties that it supposed to have for no apperent reasons (archers without 0-range bombard) etc.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by pvzh
Well, they are all like that.

I played more: Mesopatamia, The Middle Ages, Age of Discovery. Each of them needs great amount of work to be anything enjoyable.

I spent lots of time rebalancing and re-editing all these scenarios, but realised that some of them are beyond any repair because AI just does not know how to meet objectives and cannot be made to meet objectives.

Out of all I think only Mesopatamia can be worked in something playable (without Wonder victory obviously) and, maybe, Sengoku (needs, removal of regicide, probably, have not tried it yet) because they are the closest to epic game. REX, research, smash units/cities. AI's are ok at that.

The Middle Ages have regicide which put all AI's in constan REX, and in part "idiotic" (auto-razing everything after death of 2-3 kings: even wonders and probably treasure units) and "crusade" (the fun part that undoable by AI).

The Age of Discovery is even worse. The whole point of the scenario is bringing treasures from the New World. After numerous attempts I failed to encourage and/or facilitate AI's to do so at any decent rate. I played it like 3 times to test out different stuff and each replay gave me 1-2 treasure-picked-up events by ALL AI and 0-1 actually brought to europe. Just sad, very sad.

Edit: plus all of them are littered with stupid mistakes like harbours are not seafaring, or unit does not have strategy selected, or does not have properties that it supposed to have for no apperent reasons (archers without 0-range bombard) etc.

Unfortunately the best way to enjoy the Conquests is through playing it with other humans (i.e. PBEM and MP) as they understand the concepts and have the ability to play to win.

I ran into the same exact things on both Mesopotamia and Age of Discovery with the AI not being able to cope with the win conditions that made for fairly breezy victory for me on emperor level. I started Rise of Rome (as Rome) but it's just one big slugfest that I've already won....I just haven't bothered finishing out to the actual win condition.

[Arrian]

I did just about the same thing: got everybody's workers on turn1, and got alliances vs. Carthage.

I too killed a 1xNumidian army in Carthago.

As for the other Conquests... I've only played a few, but the bugs/design flaws haven't inspired me to play the others.

I have played:

Mesopotamia: easy wonder victory, helped greatly due to getting a SGL from the first tech I researched.

Mesoamerica: kinda fun, actually. I didn't look at it with the same critical eye you have, so I may have missed all sorts of problems with it. But I enjoyed that one.

Age of Discovery: the AI isn't good at all at bringing the treasure back, which is the whole point, so it's almost sure to lose, unless it decides to just attack you. This did not happen to me. I also benifitted massively from the old gpt bug - I played it before the patches.

Rise of Rome - the problems have been mentioned. I still kinda enjoyed it, but I'm not sure I'd play it again.

All my games were down on Monarch.

-Arrian

[Fried-Psitalon]

I think part of the problem you may be experiencing (at least from a "challenge" aspect) is your difficulty level - I'm normally a monarch/emperor player, and I play the scenarios on Demi/Deity and enjoy a good challenge from them.

Most people I've talked to find the scenarios challenging once they jack the difficulty level up a bit. Want a worthy scenario challenge? The Maya on Sid in AoD - never seen it done yet.

[player1]

The one of the problems here is that you play of high difficulty level.

At such levels, AI always gets several bonus workers.
Unfortunatly those workers are always placed at AI's capitol.

For fair game I suggest waiting one turn and then start trading.

[player1]

One other thing.

There is no such thing as scenario AI.

All scenarios use standard random game AI.

That makes it tricky to solve some scenario specific issuses.

[Inverse Icarus]

AoD is an awesome multiplayer scenario, especially if there is a no war in europe clause

[player1]

It seams that trading in 1st turn iS BUGGY.

You can, as alexmen said, get AI to pay you for entering in war, for example.

Luckly, from 2nd turn, things go back to normal.

And consdering that AI will move his workers in 1st turn, I guess, that for fair game no trading should be allowed in

1st turn.


As for neighbours having no contact with each other, that probably since contact at start have only civs with

embassies. I guess some extra embassies should be added then for a fix.


Regarding Armies, that's probably weakness of AI.
Maybe it sent other NMs in exploration and then left without enough units to form an army. Who knows...

[WarpStorm]

A simple suggestion. Don't buy workers on the first turn. The AI hasn't had time to sort out it's affairs yet and thinks it needs the money more than the workers.

[Dominae]

Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica and Sengoku are all pretty low on the "exploitable" scale. Try those.

[alexman]

Because they are the closest to epic games, I guess?
I'll try them. Thanks.

Warpstorm, it's not that the AI thinks it needs money more than workers. They gave me their workers AND their money in exchange for an alliance.

Player 1, the workers are given to each civ in the player setup, so that's not related to difficulty level. This scenario actually gives zero extra AI starting units to all difficulty levels.

pvzh, the 'silly mistakes' are discouraging. It makes me want to fix the conquests before playing them, but that defeats the purpose. BTW, I thought they fixed the AI strategy flags in one of the patches.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by alexman
Because they are the closest to epic games, I guess?

Yup. As someone else already mentioned, the AI was not redesigned to play the more esoteric Conquests well. That's fine with me: I prefer epic games to scenarios.


Dominae

[player1]

Originally posted by alexman
Warpstorm, it's not that the AI thinks it needs money more than workers. They gave me their workers AND their money in exchange for an alliance.

This should not be possibile from 2nd turn and later (just tested).
Something in first turn makes it buggy.

For fair game, skip diplomacy in first turn.

Player 1, the workers are given to each civ in the player setup, so that's not related to difficulty level. This scenario actually gives zero extra AI starting units to all difficulty levels.

Yes, you are right here.

[Buckets]

There are 2 bugs i'm disappointed weren't addressed:
1- sub bug/invisible unit bug
2- 'hidden nationality' unit bug, where the ai can attack cities in peacetime, but the human cannot.

[Alex]

I thought that 1.15 beta had addressed some of the problems regarding AI in the scenarios...

[ducki]

TBS games have lost a lot of ground in the last few years to RTS games.

A large portion of C3C seems tailored to luring the fence-sitters back to TBS.

I just hope C4 isn't a middle-of-the road pseudo-real-time-turn-based strategy game. If I want to play RTS, there are quite a lot of games out there. I don't like them.

Which may explain why I haven't enjoyed the Conquests scenarios.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Unless you're playing MP - and there it only makes sense to play simulturn because you otherwise spend 50+% of your time waiting - I fail to see how Civ is becoming more like RTS? You have as much time in SP as you want to do everything. The trend towards semi-RTS in MP is a simple acknowledgement of the facts of online play and average person's schedules.

[LzPrst]

when I ran AoD as the mayas, the portugese won by getting their treasures and all in the last 10 turns of the scenario (and I would have won cultural when it was my turn again, aaaaargh)
maybe its fixed in 1.18 or maybe you're just über-good.

blarf nargh! my connection is more buggy than an anthill!

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Unless you're playing MP - and there it only makes sense to play simulturn because you otherwise spend 50+% of your time waiting - I fail to see how Civ is becoming more like RTS?

That's not what ducki is saying; he's saying that he does not want CIV to be an RTS/TBS hybrid just to get a slice of the RTS market.

I just hope C4 isn't a middle-of-the road pseudo-real-time-turn-based strategy game.

As you know, I agree. Like Civ3, I think CIV should be designed as a SP/TBS game, with MP functionality added in later on in development. Else the game as a whole will suffer. The Civ series is exemplary of the TBS genre; it will not do if it turns into something like RoN.


Dominae

[ducki]

Almost, Dominae.
I was, in fact, saying that Conquests was/is partially marketed at the fence-sitters. Those that like TBS but don't have hours upon hours to devote. The Conquests are actually described in similar terms in various reviews I've read. The Conquests are actually given a lot more weight in most of the reviews I have read - or at least a lot more verbiage.

And there's no convincing me that they don't "feel" RTS-esque. Sure, you have all the time you want, F-P. That doesn't change the way they feel to me. Maybe I just don't like the mission-based flavor.

None of my post had anything to do with MP. It was all about the subject line. Basically, the most touted selling point(not the most important for most of us, though) was that there were small missions that a casual gamer could complete in a couple of hours one evening. A great way to win back some of the strays, IMO, but not the reason I bought it.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Originally posted by Dominae
As you know, I agree. Like Civ3, I think CIV should be designed as a SP/TBS game, with MP functionality added in later on in development. Else the game as a whole will suffer. The Civ series is exemplary of the TBS genre; it will not do if it turns into something like RoN.


Dominae

Here is where we fundamentally disagree - I think CIV as a series is destined for failure - and soon - if it does NOT start appealing more to the MP crowd; not because the game is worsening (I think it is getting better) but because the money isn't there. Frankly it's a simple money equation - multiplayer games make a heckuva lot more, and Firaxis isn't blind to that.... and neither is the greedy overlord behind them.

How many ultra-popular, major money-making SP games can you name anymore? For each one, I can name five which claim MP as their fare and made more.

[Dominae]

You may have a point there...but I'm not happy about it.

[ducki]

Just as a counterpoint to F-P.

The fact that you feel you can smother any successful SP title with 5 more successful MP titles suggest that from a business standpoint, for this particular franchise, an MP-focus would be suicide.

So, currently, FPSes are the big thing, and if you don't have MP, you're toast, right? So, someone that traditionally writes SP First-Person Adventure - by your logic - should abandon their bread and butter to enter an already crowded market with another "me too!" FPS. (Edit: But they should go ahead and stick their Adventure brand on it so they can "satisfy" old and new customers alike.)

I say they should stick with what they know and what their fans have come to love over the years. Basically, "Dance with the one that brung ya'."

There's no compelling fiscal logic that suggests a successful widget-maker should start trying to sell knock-off wockets just because there are a lot of successful wocket-makers.

That's my opinion.

[Aqualung71]

A successful widget maker, if he knows anything about business, will continue to make widgets. They are his bread and butter, his cash cow. If he kills the goose, there's no more golden eggs. He may of course try to build a new improved widget, if such a thing is possible. There is likely to be demand for it and the buying public certainly likes to see continual product improvement.

BUT....he may also decide to invest in a new wocket manufacturing business. That's fine, and he can invest his widget profits in a wocket business and start the whole risk and return cycle again.

But he would be profoundly stupid to try to turn his widget business into a wocket business. Not only does he sacrifice his cash cow for an uncertain new business, he also writes off years of experience and intellectual property value, plus runs a real risk of losing key professionals who happen to prefer making widgets over wockets.

There are a lot of profoundly stupid business decisions made every day. Let's hope this won't become one of them.

[LzPrst]

small note. in the ole gamespy game tournament civ3 has dropkicked every game it has been set up against. and that was in most cases before conquests came out which IMO made the game complete. the next game on the list of soon-dead challengers will be GTA Vice City, now before conquests I knew where my vote was going, but this fix, (not expansion) has made the game what I wanted. Point is, the civ series has only been gaining momentum since the day I first played it on a borrowed 24mhz computer in my friends basement, and the fact that civ3 wins these contests proves that there is a huge online crowd liking it and playing it, and I hope most of them have bought it. If thats not a cash cow with staying power I dont know what is.
And I'm doing my job, already got two of my girls hooked on it (not girlfriends, just have one of those)

[Fried-Psitalon]

Originally posted by LzPrst
small note. in the ole gamespy game tournament civ3 has dropkicked every game it has been set up against. and that was in most cases before conquests came out which IMO made the game complete. the next game on the list of soon-dead challengers will be GTA Vice City, now before conquests I knew where my vote was going, but this fix, (not expansion) has made the game what I wanted. Point is, the civ series has only been gaining momentum since the day I first played it on a borrowed 24mhz computer in my friends basement, and the fact that civ3 wins these contests proves that there is a huge online crowd liking it and playing it, and I hope most of them have bought it. If thats not a cash cow with staying power I dont know what is.
And I'm doing my job, already got two of my girls hooked on it (not girlfriends, just have one of those)

No offense, but take a closer look at those numbers, Lz. We may beat GTA (something I wouldn't bet on with 5:1 odds, frankly) but Liberty City was a soft bracket from the start.

Civ's best showing so far in any round has been around 6k votes, and... if I remember right, and I may not, a 65% majority. Compare that to Doom, Half Life, and Quake - all of which have broken the 10k vote mark - more than once in some cases! - and have had such blowout victories as 82% or more.

Don't get me wrong here: Civ is by far and away my favorite game of all time, but I know I'm in a minority. I'm not saying they SHOULD get rid of the Civ franchise - I'm saying they should bow to realism and incorporate MP into the Civ series. I think they've done so rather well with Simulturn; it's still civ, but it gives MP a chance - and hopefully word of the modestly successful Conquests MP experience (it really is quite enjoyable and can be played in short doses) will draw more people back for Civ 4. I hope that for once Civ will be designed with MP and SP as equal partners.

Because while I love Civ, Atari bears it no magic feelings beyond a bottom line, and Atari knows that wickets sell for a buck-fifty, and wockets - though there are a lotta wockets for sale - go for three grand each.

Regardless, perhaps I am alone in thinking - though I suspect Firaxis agrees with me based on Civ3's MP - that good MP and continued "Good Civ" aren't neccessarily at odds with each other. Civ3 was a bold first step in maintaining both realms, IMO - I'm looking forward to seeing what is done in Civ 4.

[ducki]

plus runs a real risk of losing key professionals who happen to prefer making widgets over wockets.

Don't forget the bigger risk - losing their original base market. I know - for myself - if C:IV comes out and is more about MP than SP and more similar to RTS than good old TBS, not only would I not buy it, I would probably not buy C5 or any other future Firaxis game that pretended to be Civ - unless there was a slew of positive reviews specifically about its return to old-style SP TBS .

Yeah, it's hypothetical, but turning off your "faithful" market by trying to enter a new market or hybridizing is a wonderful way to lose your original customers and not attract enough new ones that will view your hybrid product as a half-breed that's not as good as their favorite pure-breeds.

perhaps I am alone in thinking - though I suspect Firaxis agrees with me based on Civ3's MP - that good MP and continued "Good Civ" aren't neccessarily at odds with each other

No, you're not alone. I agree that they are two great tastes that can be great together.
All I'm saying is, if they put the focus and the base gameplay with a decidedly MP or RTS feel, they'll likely lose a lot of these long-time(in marketspeak, that reads "older and with disposable income") faithful(marketspeak=evangelist) customers(ATMs). Once you tick off your strongest customer base, it takes an awful lot of effort to win them back.

This is one of the few cases where "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" doesn't apply. A "betrayed" customer is typically an anti-customer for life. (Example - I will never buy any game that has the words "Peter Molyneaux" or "Black & White" or possibly even "Lionhead" on the box. Ever. Never. And I used to be a big fan.)

So, yes, I agree that MP Civ is good, but I stand by my statement that C:IV needs a SP and a TBS focus to maintain marketability. That doesn't mean it doesn't need or shouldn't have very good MP code, but just that if it's MP-Centric, there's probably a lot of folks that'll just stick with C3. Myself included.