Civilization 2 Mod?

1

[1]

2

[TheLimey]

It seems to me that a good game story should be divided in to 3 acts; The Start, The Struggle & The Winning (or Close Losing)

It seems as though every game can only 'dish out' a finite challenge, so while a beginning or intermediate player can get a good game, with generous helpings of each of the above 'acts', an experienced player who knows and exploits the limitations of the game engine cuts the middle act short. Then its only a question of mopping up. That becomes tedious awefully quickly.

I was thinking about this problem towards the end of the CtP1 product cycle, and looking forward to being able to maybe accomplish something in CtP2 towards this end.

It seems as though, by all accounts, the AI is defending well, but generally attacking badly. This could be due to the fact that these players are getting the AI onto its back foot, which as you can see in the AI files, minimizes its offensive capability.

Something needs to be changed in the game dynamic, and its unlikely that any game design company will do this, because they are in the business of catering to the lowest common denominator. Difficulty levels should sort this out, but never do, since they are just 'resource modifiers or multipliers' for the AI and player. If a player can achieve a greater critical mass than is necessary to overpower one single region then thats all that is necessary.

In short, a human has a critical military advantage; Divide and Conquer. A human doesn't wage wars on all fronts, but power projects in a narrow sense. The AI of the computer also 'power projects' since single targeted city attacks 'work'. What the computer does BADLY is defend against power projection. It doesn't predict troop movements or see paterns. It doesn't understand interdiction or any grand strategy at all.

What to do? Keep the status quo? In my opinion, no, at least in a mod for those that choose to have a challenge.

There are some specifics that may be helpful in resolving these game play issues;

1) Eliminate the game engine exploits. The key exploit in Civ games has been and is still ICS. If you're not sure what ICS, please search for ICS... I won't repeat whats been said here a hundred times before.

CtP2 is interesting in that it uses a different dynamic of resource gathering for cities. Essentially you gain a percentage of resources within a ring until you get to a new critical size, then you start getting increasing resources within that ring.

The reasoning behind this new model was a move away from micromanagement towards abstraction, that I am all in favor of; it allows the player to deal with the empire level stuff, yet still allows for a degree of micromanagement by city and tile improvement placement.

The ICS problem still exists because 10 size 1 cities are more beneficial than 1 size 10 city. This is easy to solve by changing the properties of improvements upwards in general, making it ultimately detrimental to keep cities small. Bigger cities should be just plain better.

There should be some amount of struggle to get them going and growing, so building that settler at size 2 will drop you back another 20 or 30 turns.

Unmodified cities in deserts or tundra should either starve or grow so weakly without serious tile improvement placement.

The PW/Tile Improvement scheme of CtP is a great component of an ICS solution.

2) The rich get richer.

This topic was started by myself in the following topic Wonders o' the world... the root of all evil? and continued to some degree in a Civ3 General discusion.

I won't repeat this topic over and over, except to say that Feats of Wonder are more of the same with regard to the rich getting richer.

I'd advocate keeping FOW's, but limiting Wonders to one per Civ, per age. That would seem to be a happy medium.

3) AI Fudging=GOOD & AI Cheating=BAD

There were two main ways Civ2 made up for the weaknesses of a finite state AI. First were the player limitations and decreased starting resources. Secondly and to me most annoying, was the way the AI players cheat; ignoring game mechanics blatantly. These are well known by now, and have been documented.

I am not opposed to playing withly handicapped rules versus the AI, but there is a critical point; the point at which reality is stretched, that the game starts to be flawed.

CtP1 was a positive step in this regard; the AI didn't cheat but had increased resources and multipliers for food and science and so on. Since they are 'hidden' they do not offend the senses in the same way.

The level at which the AI fudges will need to be adjusted based on what other changes are made.

I think that perhaps the most important will be the production bonuses; EVEN IF the AI can stay in the game, keep offensive it's USELESS UNLESS it be given the units to put in the stack, by appropriate bonuses. I believe that this can only make for a more satisfying tactical and strategic experience.

4) Guns vs. Butter

It seems too cheap for the player to build and maintain large armies in CtP1&2. Since ultimately military strength was for the majority of history the key to power and sucess, its key that the human should not be able to easily get into a lead this way.

For the reasons I mentioned above, having twelve good units, and 'enough mobile defenders' is enough to conquer the world in CtP2. Building (and perhaps more so keeping) large armies should ultimately be more difficult for the human player.

There should be a clear choice between serious defense spending and a productive society.

5) Defenders should have a serious advantage.

In the Medmod, it was plain difficult to take a town defended in strength by the AI . You were going to take losses, inevevitably. This felt *VERY* right, particularly the counter bombarding and so on. I have a memory of some of the tactical situations that 'turned the tide', in a way that I never did in Civ2. Thats the mood that you want to capture in a civ game.

I think its clear, that the advantage should be with the defenders and to this end, the defensive bonuses should be 'beefed up', along with introducing more rounded unit choices, that the AI can use too.


[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited November 26, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by TheLimey on 11-26-2000 01:41 PM It seems as though, by all accounts, the AI is defending well, but generally attacking badly.

what i have noticed is that generally the ai is not very aggresive. there is a question though: if you never provoke a big ai and often give him "presents", should he ignore all that and start a war against you?

another question is: should each ai act as if it against everyone else(including the other ai's), or should all ai's be against you "underneath"?

quote: The ICS problem still exists because 10 size 1 cities are more beneficial than 1 size 10 city.

the ai doesnt use ics. therefore the problem of ics is left on the human. if the human wants a more challenging he just has to stop "cheating" through ics

[Metamorph]

ICS.

It's been a very long time since I uttered those three letters. The bane of all enjoyment I ever hoped to glean from any civlike game I'd ever played. That evil, nauseating concept, which every single game designer I've ever encountered seemed to simply shirk off as a mythical, magical fairy-tale.

Well, I've fiddled with CtP2 for a few days now, and I have to say that I'm slightly impressed. While ICS is not eliminated, it's certainly hampered by the new resource design model. So I concur heartily in that respect; it's a great idea, and is a bold step toward eliminating ICS altogether.

Furthermore, since "specialization" of tiny cities early in the game is no longer a feasible option (i.e., thowing workers on high food tiles for population, then switching to production tiles to build units), pumping out massive amounts of settlers is no mere feat. So as a cumulative result, building a huge hairy horde of cities is additionally difficult.

Throw in the fact that it's a bit more difficult to advance in government, as well as the presence of more strict city totals per government type, and we're coming along nicely. Many of these concepts, in fact, are clearly derived directly from various mods that were made to try desperately to render CtP1 into an almost playable condition.

Suffice it to say, I tried to ICS, and failed -- and am pleasantly surprised by the fact. I of course intend to go back, learn the precise nicities of the radius production model, and go about attempting exploitation on the micromanagement level and see how that goes. But all in all, so far, things are looking much brighter.

On the ICS front, that is. Wall of Flesh still seems to be a problem. But one nightmare at a time, I suppose...

- Metamorph

hey Metamorph, long time no see...

it's glad to hear you syaing this about ics. i'm one of the guys who just play and dont get into experiments and close looks in the game mechanics

[TheLimey]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 11-26-2000 02:45 PM what i have noticed is that generally the ai is not very aggresive. there is a question though: if you never provoke a big ai and often give him "presents", should he ignore all that and start a war against you? another question is: should each ai act as if it against everyone else(including the other ai's), or should all ai's be against you "underneath"? if the human wants a more challenging he just has to stop "cheating" through ics

In answer to the first point, I believe that the AI is not agressive enough. There should probably be a ganging up on the human by most if not all of the AI's, and a more realistic model of trust and happiness, for maintaining Alliances, and getting AI's to agree.

The situation where the AI only agrees to stop trespass is only such an issue, because the player is almost the leader by default. There is no 'middle act' at the moment, and this desparately needs to be changed.

In answer to your second point, I've seen the AI virtually ICS in CtP1 (with medmod)... it remains to be seen how effective it can become in CtP2.

Regarding artifically maintained limitations, these seem so dumb. OCC is such a beast. ICS can definitely be mitigated or destroyed by altering the game mechanics appropriately. If it can be done, it should be done. Theres just no good reason not to.

[TheLimey]

Metamorph>

Its interesting to hear you say that ICS is mitigated in CtP2. What I get from the player reports in general is that its far too easy to grow a city in whatever location is available, without the aid of TI's and improvements. TI's and improvements SHOULD be necessary to grow in less optimal spots, forcing players to resource new cities appropriately and stamp out the remnants of the curse of ICS.

Regarding Wall of Flesh, or Wall of Beef as it was in CtP1 , I think I have an idea of how to mitigate this, that I mentioned above. Make war much more expensive. I.E. You still CAN make war but do you WANT TO?

Less units doesn't mean less of a game; it will run quicker, and make the units that are there more important.

The more I see, the more I think, less IS more.

[TheLimey]

I almost forgot to mention, that I strongly believe that the slaver should be destroyed after capturing one slave through battle.

Thats another 'Infinite Sleaze' blag newly introduced in CtP1 and continued in CtP2. Of course, anti-slaver stuff should be made more expensive.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Limey et al: One way to realistically hamper the "Build thru Slavery" model in CtPII, which I admit was an easy way to "supersize" early cities in CtPI, is to introduce the real drawbacks to slavery into the game. Neither CtPI nor, apparently, CtPII have them now. They are:
Lack of Technical Improvement. It wasn't until the Roman Empire stopped expanding and bringing in slaves, coupled with a serious manpower shortage within the Empire, that they developed the great multiple-water wheel-powered mills or the windmills that powered much of the medieval improvements in manufacturing. Likewise, Heiro's early experiments with hydraulic and steam-powered gadgets went nowhere because with plenty of slave labor no one needed powered machinery to replace manual labor.
Diplomatic Trouble. Quickest way to become enemies with some civilizations was to enslave their poeple. Rome was guaranteed to come after anyone enslaving Roman citizens, and Christian states in the later middle ages took an extremely dim view of non-Christians enslaving the believers. Later still, once the view that slavery was morally wrong began to spread, being a slave-holding state could leave you seriously isolated - as in the American Confederacy in the ACW, which even through military victories couldn't overcome the moral reluctance of European powers to intervene on the side of slavers.
Slave Revolt. Even when the slaves don't revolt, immense resources have to be allocated to keep an eye on them. Sparta became a miliarist state partly to keep its Helots down, After the Spartacus episode Rome had large numbers of troops and semi-military vigiles watching the slave population.Count up the Overseers, Slave Catchers, Guards, Militia, etc., etc in the American South in the 1850s, and an appreciable percentage of the otherwise-productive part of the population is tied down watching their slaves.
I think, if these elements were included in the game, the practice of slavery would become more 'balanced' and the option to become a slave-holding civ would be a real choice instead of one you can't afford to make because slaves make it too easy to outstrip your opponents.

[TheLimey]

Agreed Diodorus... but...

1) I can't see any way of introducing the lack of technical improvement idea
2) Diplomatically, it doesn't matter if everyone hates you if you have a supersize empire *IF* we haven't found a way to even out the game (see the other stuff at the top of the thread)
3) Slave revolts were and are a danger, however, the gain in production from the slaves ofsets the production cost of the garrison.

All you can do is slow it down...

[WesW]

In his mod, CD lowered the number of slaves that a unit suppressed from 3 to 2, which was a good change.
In the Med mod, I raised the amount of food they consumed, and make them consume wages as well.
In ctp2, I don't believe that slaves consume *any* food.
I just checked the pop.txt, and slaves are not listed in it like they were in ctp1, so I am not sure right now how to adjust these settings.
I also eliminated the production effect of rivers, to try and reduce the unbalancing effect of that resource.

As far as the AI's reluctance to attack, I found in the strategies.txt that the goal for defense was higher than that for attack for all AI types. I have reversed this for militaristic types, and I may change it for other types later.
From what I can tell from ctp1, the AI will not attack if it can't build a stack more powerful than your stack, even if it has other stacks to throw at you. This will be something else to look at as we become more familiar with the game.

As far as the rich getting richer, I think it was Gedrin who set all wonders to give -1 happiness. I didn't try this in the med mod I, but I might try it in the med mod II.

As far as unit settings, I am going to set them to what they were in the med mod I, as far as increases from one age to the next. We will have to see as far as production and upkeep settings.
I will probably increase the effect of city walls as well. I need for someone to run some game tests to try and gage their effectiveness under the current settings, and figure out what they need to be raised to.

[colorme]

Wes,

I tried increasing GOAL_SEIGE priority ten-fold. It didn't help one bit (BTW, GOAL_ATTACK is probably not the right thing to modify because that controls how the AI attacks UNITS. GOAL_SEIGE seems to control the attacking of CITIES).

Regarding your comment on AI not attacking until it has a stack better than yours, I think that's not accurate (at least in CTP2 it seems). Lots of folks have commented how it throws 2/3 units at you. Also, it often has a strong army of 12 dispersed a few tiles from each other. It doesn't seem to be able to combine them. And if an attack force has to be transported across water, we can forget about that. The game doesn't have the intelligence to do that.

I believe the bigger problem is that while defense is easy (ExecuteIncrementally ), offense is hard
(RallyFirst ). And the latter piece of AI seems to be still-born in this game. I doubt you'll be able to improve that (For those who've not checked yet, the above flags are part of the aidata/goals file.)

But if you do, I'll be one happy camper

OK, I've spent the Thanksgiving break fretting over the game. Time to move on in life!

BTW, where's MarkG's review?? Wonder if he'll agree with my observations
Mark, did you postpone your review because you realised how crappy the AI is ?

[TheLimey]

Regarding the 12 stacks from the AI. When the AI is in defense mode, the offensive stacks are just at a lower priority. It still 'matches the target' just not as often. Why not duplicate the most offensive battleplan, over the top of the defensive one, and see how the AI reacts?

Also, you might want to set up a game with 3 civs, a biggish map, and just build and defend yourself, but let the AI get bigger than you. Use globesat I guess... Watch what happens when the AI can resource however it wants.

Wes> Doesn't the lack of food requirements almost demand a need for lessening slaving. This sounds like an open invite...

The -1 happiness is all well and good if the human is building wonders BUT... if the human ignores them, and lets the AI build them, theoretically the AI could run itself into the ground by building them...

The human could just build the positive happiness ones, and the 'best of the rest' to be sure.

I think we're in for some amount of playtesting to find really good balance.

[Drakenred]

quote: Originally posted by TheLimey on 11-27-2000 06:29 AM Regarding the 12 stacks from the AI. When the AI is in defense mode, the offensive stacks are just at a lower priority. It still 'matches the target' just not as often. Why not duplicate the most offensive battleplan, over the top of the defensive one, and see how the AI reacts? Also, you might want to set up a game with 3 civs, a biggish map, and just build and defend yourself, but let the AI get bigger than you. Use globesat I guess... Watch what happens when the AI can resource however it wants. Wes> Doesn't the lack of food requirements almost demand a need for lessening slaving. This sounds like an open invite... The -1 happiness is all well and good if the human is building wonders BUT... if the human ignores them, and lets the AI build them, theoretically the AI could run itself into the ground by building them... The human could just build the positive happiness ones, and the 'best of the rest' to be sure. I think we're in for some amount of playtesting to find really good balance.

I think you should be able to give the AI a happynes bonus to ofset that, although frankly i find the -1 hapyness bonus to be a bit odd.(the Real Wonders of the world were for the most part a souce of Pride in the empire in question)

as for WOTW, i would think that it would be a lot more realistic to have a modification of the way they expire. Specificaly, they Expire when your Civilisation builds a new Wonder of the World(logicaly, they should also continue to provide a minor hapynes-Tourist trade efect bonus for the City when they expire(IE the statue of Liberty, starts off providing a empire-wide hapyness/growth bonus, but when it is replaced by a later WOTW, within its empire, then it simply provides a minor Comerce bonus (say +10%, and +1 hapyness) to that city only)(also, i think that the bonuses should decay a bit after time, say all wondres provide their max benifit for (say)100 turns(200-250 in CTP2), then slowly start to demisnish in efect,(or terminate in Efect all together) or only provide full efects to fewer cities, or the top X number of cities that would most benifit from that WOTW

[Alpha Wolf]

This being my first post, I'd like to start it by saying how happy I am that i'm not the only annoyed at the lack of offensive play by the AI. CtP was so annoying how a good friend at a peace level would send a single ship-of-the-line to bombard one of my cities. it was too easy to roll just one or two stacks against them, completely wiping them out before they had a chance to mobilize into an effective force. i remember the question being "what do i gain by starting a war?", but the AI has no ability to determine whether attacking someone strong is to their advantage. if possible, I'd like to see the AI only attack if its ready to fight or if the number of my units nearby is say less than 5. Is there any way to allow the max AI stack to be larger than the human player stack? And if the AI cant figure out how to follow fuel rules on planes, maybe planes should not be allowed by anyone. Nothing like getting my units kiled by some AI planes, then hearing them crash at the end of the turn.

[Alpha Wolf]

OH I almost forgot. As far as wonders go. There's just too many of them. Too many of them have benefits that I doubt were/are real. How did the Pyramids help with gold? And chichen itza deterred crime by killing the simplest offense. After a certain time, this wasnt allowed anymore yet in CtP2 it looks like it never expires. Most WoWs should in fact be nothing more than FoWs.
And they should take substantially longer to build than they currently do.
It appears that theres still no production penalty for switching the building queue before its finished.

[Elucidus]

Since when has many of the wonders in any of the civ games been true to real life... The pyramids counting as graneries in all cities, or the great wall as city walls in all cities... The list goes on. Remember it is supposed to be fun, not real life. Although I agree that the cost could use a bit of an increase. I mean it should be next to impossible for me to build all the wonders in the game on impossible level. But so far that is exacly what I've done. Maybe if we added more wonders, so that the computer can build those while I am building the others, than the wonders wouldn't mean so much, and maybe there would be two or three superpowers in the world... Just some thoughts 'o mine.

------------------
Yours in gaming,
~Elucidus

Title: The Impossible Maps v0.1

Description: Official and Unofficial maps on Impossible difficulty level

Included maps:

- Samurai
The map from the Samurai scenario, with random civs on impossible difficulty level

- 6 Continents
A (not official) random map that looked nice to me...

- Small and Agressive
Command the Greeks against 7 agrresive civilizations on a small map

- The Craddle of Civilization
The Mediterranean Sea, made by hexagonian. Civs: Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Phoenicia, Israel, Zulu

Download from: http://apolyton.net/ctp2/downloads/maps/Impossible.zip


Notes:

1) It's far from complete, i'm posting this basically to show that you CAN offer a selection of civs in the start(see the Craddle map)

2) I'm sure that at least the Craddle map works as it is supposed to. The others I havent touched for a week and i'm not if there any problems with them...

[skorpion59]

This is great, I will check it out.

You know if I spend enough time learning CtP2, by the time I am done, all the map work will be done.

On a more serious side, which of the Start Location options did you use on the cradle map. It would help in finding out what works and what doesn't work when creating map scenarios.

BTW, loved your readme file that came with it.

Why don't we make a Civ2 mod for CtP2? Original techs, units etc... or not?