Thread Tools
Old November 5, 2001, 21:23   #1
Lawrence of Arabia
PtWDG Gathering StormMac
King
 
Lawrence of Arabia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California Republic
Posts: 1,240
It's not ICS- it's REX!
Everyone who is saying that ICS is now in the game, ICS is all over the place, ICS is a must. I have to say this

We all know what ICS is. Its having a seemingly infinite amount of cities in the smallest area, all of them size 1 or 2, and who keep their size during the whole game

REX- Rapid Early eXpansion

This is where you have to build about 10-15 cities in very little time. Its different from ICS. In ICS you build your cities close, and don't have them develope. REX has building your cities at standard (4-6) distances. You build as many as you can to get a stake of territory. But now, instead of building more cities when you run out of space, you stop building cities, and start building improvements. These REX cities then become strong, size 20 cities later on. ICS cities never achieve that.
__________________
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini
Lawrence of Arabia is offline  
Old November 5, 2001, 23:04   #2
Bakunine
Warlord
 
Bakunine's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Portugal
Posts: 139
Couldn't agree more with you.
__________________
I do not want to achieve immortality threw my work. I want to achieve it threw not dying - Woody Allen
Bakunine is offline  
Old November 5, 2001, 23:16   #3
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
In any event, we shouldn't need to expand so rapidly every game just to keep up. More variety needs to be shown by AI civs - some should expand rapidly at the beginning, some shouldn't. I'm tired of having to start my games the same way every time in an attempt to keep up.
saracen31 is offline  
Old November 5, 2001, 23:27   #4
CygnusZ
Warlord
 
CygnusZ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 289
No offense, but a civilizaiton would have too be dumber than bricks not to want want a solid base of cities no matter what their style. Any complaint that would send the computer back to being timid in city founding would only make it weaker, there is no advantage in any way for the computer not to desire to set up a solid base of cities.

Sorry, but all this talk of stopping the inital "land grab" of Civilization III is just terrible. It might be allright if you could set a concrete number of cities that are allowed in the game, but otherwise this whole thing is just a big no-no.
CygnusZ is offline  
Old November 5, 2001, 23:47   #5
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
Some AI civs should do it, some shouldn't. Just as in real life civilizations.

Who said they shouldn't build up a solid base of cities? Some should be expansionist, some shouldn't. Gives us the players more variety & more strategies to have to combat.
saracen31 is offline  
Old November 5, 2001, 23:55   #6
CygnusZ
Warlord
 
CygnusZ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 289
Go ahead and give me an exact strategy explaining how *NOT* gaining more cities will help a civilization.

BTW, for all this bellyachein' the enemy only really creates 7-8 cities during this phase.
CygnusZ is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:02   #7
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
I don't care if they all do it in some games - or if in other games none of them do it. I just ask for more variety. As it stands now, we know there will be a mad dash to plop down cities all over the place.

Fine, I can handle that. But why box me in by having to play that same strategy game after game? The game should be about different strategic options every time I play. I don't want to know how every single civ will act in every single game before the game even begins. Where's the fun in that?

And by only making 5 or 6 huge cities and focusing on culture in the early game, which the AI currently does not do, they could put a hurt on me by building wonders & hurting me with their superior culture.

I'm not asking for elimation of REX, I'm asking for variety.
saracen31 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:09   #8
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
People who don't call this ICS or who don't see the problems: Again, what level of difficulty are you playing?

Second thing: I'm not asking for the AI to STOP its expansion. I'm asking for the player to have a reasonable way to deal with the AI violating your territory TO expand. In addition, I'm asking that colonies be used in the way they were intended: As a bit of a risk in order to grab a far-off resource. As it is now, we just build city after city (and I *do* build them Civ2 style over-lapping each other just as always). Contiguous City Borders along with Settler Deporation would really make the whole thing a lot more stragtegic and fun.
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:10   #9
TechWins
King
 
TechWins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,747
Don't be so technical with terms.
__________________
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.
TechWins is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:11   #10
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Are you talking to me? What terms?
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:12   #11
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
I agree with your ideas, Yin. And would like to see some AI variety as well. I think the 2 things taken together would add to (at least for me) the enjoyment.

Sometimes I want an all-out land grab game - sometimes I want to focus on my infrastructure from the start and just build a few big cities with all the bells & whistles.

Both should be viable options. Currently there is only one viable option.
saracen31 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:17   #12
TechWins
King
 
TechWins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
Are you talking to me? What terms?
I'm talking to LOA; a term (ICS) doesn't need to be dissected to it's very core.
__________________
However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.
TechWins is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:22   #13
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
saracen31: Thanks. And I should clarify for people:

I actually *enjoy* and am *impressed* very much so with the AI's expansion ability. I think it's a great addition to the game. But when the player's borders become meaningless and, as a result, the player either must ICS (sue me if it's technically a little different, though it's the same in spirit) or go to war to preserve your land early on, then something is wrong.

I'm not saying disable the AI. Just give me more strategic tools to limit the AI from trappling across my territory to eat up more and more of the map. If I don't scout properly or don't have the units on-hand to deport the settler, then that's MY fault.

Tech: I see. I agree. While the pure definition of ICS is a bit different, in essence, all I did in my early game this time was fill virtually every conceivable space with only a passing thought to spacing out my cities. This is same in spirit if not virtually identical to ICS.
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:30   #14
freezuch
Chieftain
 
freezuch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
just played the game on Regent level with 16 civs on Earth Huge Map. From 10 i discovered more than 13 towns had only Expansion civilizations. the rest were about 5-7 towns by 400AD. It seems pretty logical to me: expansionists try to expand.
freezuch is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:39   #15
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
What was your starting position relative to your neighbor. Do me a favor a play as China, normal random map. See if you don't start next to India and have him crawling all over you ignoring your borders etc.

I doubt that I'm just getting unlucky in my games.
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:43   #16
freezuch
Chieftain
 
freezuch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
i agree, when you playing on normal map these bastards(pikeman and settler) are moving through your territory and found their cities right in the middle of my civ.
freezuch is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:48   #17
IBNobody
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 10:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
Go ahead and give me an exact strategy explaining how *NOT* gaining more cities will help a civilization.
Um....Reduced corruption? :P

If you don't expand all over the place, you won't face as much corruption. (Unless you edit the rules.)

- Nobody

You asked ::ducks::
IBNobody is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:55   #18
Hydey
Civilization II Democracy GameCivilization II Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Hydey's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:09
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: up shyte creek without a paddle
Posts: 6,250
I can't buy civ 3 yet but just reading through these many threads here it appears to me that many people are trying to play this game the way they played civ2.

If you ever read any of the early threads about civ 2 Strats you roll on the floor laughing at the silly ideas people had about playing the game. I think before we start asking for patchs to fix these things we allow ourselves the chance to find ways around the problems with our brains.
__________________
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits

Hydey the no-limits man. :(
Hydey is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 00:59   #19
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Easy to say when you haven't played the game yet.

I do agree, of course, we will need more time with the game. But 'if it smells like a duck' I don't think we're gonna get steak anytime soon.
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.

Last edited by yin26; November 6, 2001 at 01:09.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 01:05   #20
CygnusZ
Warlord
 
CygnusZ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally posted by IBNobody


Um....Reduced corruption? :P

If you don't expand all over the place, you won't face as much corruption. (Unless you edit the rules.)

- Nobody

You asked ::ducks::
... You *KNOW* how faulted that is. Corruption create a "critical mass" of cities you can have, and that mass goes up over time as you become more and more stable. Try again, because that argument is going to work for the first 10 cities, which is just about all that's going ot come out of the expansion phaze.
CygnusZ is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 01:05   #21
CygnusZ
Warlord
 
CygnusZ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 289
Double Post.

Last edited by CygnusZ; November 6, 2001 at 01:11.
CygnusZ is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 01:58   #22
MxM
Warlord
 
MxM's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Planet Earth, Solar System
Posts: 296
Well, actually I had successful game on medium map with 8 civs, small continents. In the beginning I focused on the development of only one city, I did not even try to build settlers. The city was on the river and it riched relatively fast the size of 12. I was focusing mostly on the culture, but when I could not build cultural buildings, I built barracks and military units. And the city was very productive, so I managed to build about 7 veteran archers very fast. Quite soon somebody declared a war, and I captured 2 cities, and I stopped only because I wanted to play small siv in this game. About the same time, my capital managed to convert 3 additional cities. So, as a result, I had 5 cities and one super city. That happened without building even one (!!!) settler. The rest of the game was pretty standard and I won by diplomatic victory.

Conclusion: you do not need to REX in order to have a successful game. You can achieve decent civ by other means: by culture and by conquest. REX is just one way to play, but not the only one. However I must admit, that if you have a lot of territory and only small # of civs, you have to REX, because you will not be able to meet and to convert/conquer other cities until later in the game.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
MxM is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 02:16   #23
raadmme
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
Summary:
Try using units to block the AIs settlers from moving where you don't want them to move.
Needs more testing...
Rest of this post is just an example of it working one time.

Also, concerning the topic, it seems like rapid expansion at first is the best strategy at this time for the AI, and for players, so I think its good the AI does it all the time.


Haven't had time to test this theory much unfortuneately, but in my current game (only my 2nd) it worked well for out-expanding the AI significantly, and controlling all the strategic resources so far (iron/horses) and most of the luxuries, on monarch difficulty.

This example is flawed because I recieved a settler from a barbarian hut early, near my starting settlers, but I hope to replicate this in future games. (edit: the fast expansion in general without the bonus settlers. Sounds like I expect the bonus settlers everytime )
After seeing how fast the AI expands, I tried to expand as fast as possible, playing Americans on monarch difficulty. I started on a pangea, 80% water, rest standard settings, barbarian villages only. I built settlers whenever a town got to 3, and warriors(later spearmen and occasionally workers) while waiting for them to get to 3. I started on a small island (to my surprise considering it was a pangea map...) with the Aztecs and Iroquois very close (smallest land mass, so expected tough competition). I scouted the whole island very quickly, and used all the warriors I made to scout. There was 5 ivory and 5 dye on the island. (I ended up with all the ivory, and all but 3 dye, 1 of which wasn't useable by them.)

After I found out how small the island was, I put warriors on all the key mountain tops and hills near my enemies. Then, when they started building settlers, I used my warriors to force the settlers away from the resources, by using a wall of warriors to keep them from moving there. Also, with all my warriors, my army was usually considered about equal to the AI's, so I never had any difficulty with them not respecting me. Near the end of the expansion phase, I had 3 Aztec settlers and 2 Iroquois settlers blocked while my last 4 settlers built to fill in the remaining spots. During this time the AI was ignoring my borders with its settlers while trying to get to the last spots, but I was still able to contain them with all my warriors and spearmen. Those settlers finally disappeared after I filled in the last spot (at which point I was almost to Monarchy). I assume they were used for growth in the AIs towns. Also, I used settlers to build villages at the AI's borders to steal resources where it was possible. Stole an ivory and iron from the Aztecs this way. Saw the AI do this to me my first game, very annoying, but smart. This is easily avoided tho when prepared, by blocking, but, unfortunately, the AI does not prevent resource stealing well.

At this point in the game, a couple turns after monarchy has been established, about ~700 bc if I remember correctly, I have a very dominant lead over my 2 island neighbors. They have no access to iron, horses, or ivory. My score and culture is about twice as much as each of theirs (half the histograph). I have a good sized tech lead over both of them, despite minimum (32-turn) science research for all of the expansion phase, while the AI was gaining many techs, which I subsequently recieved in trade. The Aztecs and Iroquois have 5 towns each, while I have ~9. 3 of the Aztecs towns are seperated from its capital, because of my interferance, and still not connected by roads. The only one that the Aztecs managed to get next to the capital is in a very poor mountainous location.

Hmm... rambled on a bit.
raadmme is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 03:19   #24
MxM
Warlord
 
MxM's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Planet Earth, Solar System
Posts: 296
Has anyone else managed to win without REX on regent? I suspect that most of the players try REX because ICS was working very good in civII. But did you try another play stile in civ III. It worked for me, especially when you do not have much space per civ.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
MxM is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 03:26   #25
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Well, some thoughts: Blocking off the settlers with units is a novel approach ... but the game should have better options then that! Anyway: Good work!

As for the map size, I think that's important. If you start with not much space to begin with, the AI readily sees that you've filled in the spaces and will concentrate on his own infrastructure. But when land is plentiful, the AI's character really changes to hype-expansion across your borders.

Sure, it makes sense. Sure, maybe that's the only way the civ thinks it can survive on such a map. Still, it makes for some tedious opening games.

I don't want to have to make a wall of warriors or a flood of cities just to deal with AI settlers.

Alas, we may be at the limits of AI programming on this point. I will accept the situation if Firaxis says not much else can be done from their point of view.
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 03:38   #26
Pyrodrew
Prince
 
Pyrodrew's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 679
Quote:
If you don't expand all over the place, you won't face as much corruption.
I have no problem with #ofcities causing corruption. But if I'm in England (with say 10 cities) & I notice SouthAmerica & Australia are open territory I should be able to put cities there without having Distance Corruption choke me to death. And at 1 shield/turn it will take FOREVER to build a forbidden palace & courthouse. And once built this forbidden palace & courthouse have no effect (or very very little) compared to the power of Distance Corruption. Result = The only way I can expand is slowly outward from the center of my empire. And if I am *lucky* enough to have leaders to help relocate my capital in SouthAmerica the Distance Corruption overwhelms my initial 10 cities in England... all that work down the drain.
Pyrodrew is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 05:40   #27
Talenn
Settler
 
Talenn's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 9
As I posted in another 'ICS' thread, I think the best and easiest solution would be that a city cant build a setter unless it is a certain size (maybe 4 or 5 for starters...would have to be tested). This would dramatically slow down the early expansion and force players (and AIs) to choose their more limited city sites more carefully.

What I find most disturbing about the current system is that all Civs (including the player) expand like mad in the extremely ancient era of the game and that by the time of the historical 'land grabs' and mass colonizations in the real world, there is practically no unoccupied land (on default maps/Civs) etc. For example, the 'Explorer' unit is nearly worthless except as a spy because there is nothing left to explore! Almost every single scrap of land is occupied long before they exist.

At any rate, I'd like to see some solution to the problem, not because its unbeatable, but because its 1) ahistorical, 2) too cost effective and 3) boring to have to do the same strategy game after game. I thought one of Sid's cornerstone design principles is the risk/reward decision-making. When it comes to the early game 'land grab', there is no decision...do it or die.
Talenn is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 06:15   #28
Robert Plomp
admin
DiploGamesBtS Tri-LeaguePolyCast TeamC4WDG Team Apolyton
Administrator
 
Robert Plomp's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 11,635
I currently play at Monarch level. (don't ask me how I got my copy overhere in Europe )

I started between Aztecs and Americans.
I play Iroquois. All civs indeed start to expand like crazy. So did I.
Since I'm not very experienced (yet) with civ3 I begun a little behind but got myself a solid empire with about 10 cities whent hey got 12.

Then they started indeed to build cities beyond my empire (so my empire became between 2 American 'empires') but I builded cities around his 'colonial' cities and since my 'old' cities already got themselves quiet some culture I was able to get 4 american cities and 2 aztec cities !!

Right now there is only one american city within my borders, but it didn't grow for a long time (I cutted all roads to it, which is easy since it's borders are surrounded by ME) and it's in the middle of the desert and plains.

Indeed, the AI is expanding like crazy, but you can chose multiple strategies ! Having a strong strategy and the right resources (I've build multiple colonies so far and earn much money and tech by trading them with superior civs) (don't forget to cancel after 20 turns and rip them off again )

The first 3 games were a disaster to me, I had to get used to it.
But now I think I'm doing fine. Next game will be even better since I know right now that deserts are important (saltpeter) and pherhaps I'll protect my borders more to prevent foreign settlers to cross them.

The more I play it, the more I get used to it and the more I like it.

CyberShy
__________________
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Robert Plomp is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 06:22   #29
old dog
Chieftain
 
old dog's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Do me a favor a play as China, normal random map. See if you don't start next to India and have him crawling all over you ignoring your borders etc.

I doubt that I'm just getting unlucky in my games.
I too have been playing as China, at the mid-difficulty levels. I've restarted a few times, so I have a little experience now dealing with India during the early part of the game.

Yes, India is a border pusher. Japan is much less so. France for some reason has often shown up nearby, and they like to come along a little later and grab little corners of unclaimed land and push.

One thing I've seen, though, is India's behavior seems relatively "realistic" or, at least, related to their own self interests. Their border aggressiveness is definitely related to their ability to expand in other directions. They want to win, so they don't want to be boxed in where they don't have enough land. Rather than go to war, they quietly push and try to grab spots along the border, happily sending settlers across your land to reach some square that is not really your land, but will cause havoc to your territorial integrity.

As to the main subject of this thread-- the standard early expansion of Civ3 certainly mimics history. The key resource early on is food. Given sufficient food, your early civ expands enough to be a viable competitor. I guess the question is whether this makes for fun gameplay, over the long run. So far, I'm giving it a tentative thumbs up. But I certainly can't criticize the AI for following the obvious game strategy.
old dog is offline  
Old November 6, 2001, 07:28   #30
Lord Maxwell
Prince
 
Local Time: 16:09
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Uppsala - Sweden
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally posted by yin26
People who don't call this ICS or who don't see the problems: Again, what level of difficulty are you playing?
I don't see the problem on Deity. Why is it bad that the computer is aggressive in early expansion when an aggressive early expansion has always been the human ticket to winning since the original civ?

Quote:
Second thing: I'm not asking for the AI to STOP its expansion. I'm asking for the player to have a reasonable way to deal with the AI violating your territory TO expand. In addition, I'm asking that colonies be used in the way they were intended: As a bit of a risk in order to grab a far-off resource. As it is now, we just build city after city (and I *do* build them Civ2 style over-lapping each other just as always). Contiguous City Borders along with Settler Deporation would really make the whole thing a lot more stragtegic and fun.
I agree that colonies failed as a concept. The entire map is filled by 1500 AD at the very latest... There is by then nowhere on the planet that isn't within someones borders, which makes colonies worthless in the time period when they actually were most useful.
Lord Maxwell is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:09.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team