Thread Tools
Old December 5, 2001, 00:47   #1
Nadexander
Warlord
 
Nadexander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Saratoga, California
Posts: 122
Its Lonely (Boring) at the Top
Many people are complaing about excessive corruption preventing expansion and the combat rules skewed in favor of the technologically inferior. This is leading to alot of frustration for many players. The rules (as yin mentioned in another thread "... the artificial limits ... simply punish a good player and reward mediocrity." Some people, like Grim Legacy, see this as part of the "challenge": "Expansion not possible? War is too hard? Tech is too difficult? I'm sorry if this is going to hurt your pride, but these things are probably just your weak gameplay speaking."

The problem, infact, isnt in keeping up. The problem is getting ahead. Once you have beaten down your neighbor and secured a solid area to build on, colonized your entire continent, built your infrastructure, and jacked up science to 4 techs a turn, there is pretty much nothing left to do. All this i usually accomplish by the late medieval/early industrial age. You cant totally run away in tech since your capped at 4 turns. Conquering over seas is counter-productive since you only get 1 production and 1 commerce. Alliances and Mutual protection pacts get you in more trouble than theyre worth. Sitting on your butt doesnt do much either because even at 4production/gold wealth sucks and specialists are even worse. At this point i sit back and wait for the AI to catch-up to make things interesting again or i run around with my armour obliterating cities to improve my relative power. Even if you want to be peaceful and win by culture there isnt much left to do past the mid-game but wait around for culture to keep coming in.

Civ3 needs to give us something to do once we are on top.

1) I think you should at least be able increase your culture output by jacking up your luxury rate (say 1 extra culture point for every 100 gold spent). This is historically realistic. For example the renaissance in europe was the result of private expenditure on luxury goods (portraits, clothing, etc.). And take, for example the dominant spread of US culture throughout the world in the last 50 years. Largly the result on a large private expenditure on luxury (mickey mouse is more recognized than mao by china's youth) and not because of 700 year old cathedrals . This would give reasons for people running a pacifist strategy to scrape for more gold by whatever means neccesary.

2) Reduce the corruption rate, but add the possibility of large scale civil war. Keep dominant countries on their toes. Allows for continued expansion without a dominant effect of more cities. Adds to challenge because you will have to fight an opponent that is as well developed as yourself

3) Ability to vassalize other countries. Allow for permanently binding peace treaties so that you can for example demand coal from a misbehaving neighbor in exchange for returning him his territory. Makes wars of conquest useful and makes it worthwhile to not raze everything in sight.

4) More terraforming/building options. Workers quickly run out of things to do shortly after discovering railroads. There are no critical buildings after hospital and factory (both show up about half way into the game). Give us the option of building small additions, like a second market place that is more expensive and ups commerce by another 25%.

5) Allow for tech "specialization". Dead end techs that cant be traded. Something like this was originally proposed as an alternative to Unique Units. Perhaps they could give some minor wonders that are nice (like heroic) instead of neccessary (intelligence agency or battlefield medicine). Perhaps some units that have some kind of advantage but arent civ-specific.

6) Bring in the idea of non-military great leaders. Maybe "extra" (over-the-cap) spending on science or luxuries could do it.

7) Chances for more than one Golden Age. Either through the wonder thing or by having some difficult but doable percentage(90%?) of cities in WLTKD for a certain number of turns(20?).

Any other ideas on how to make it so there is something to do once you are on top besides wait (many many hours) till the game ends?
Nadexander is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 01:31   #2
cassembler
Prince
 
cassembler's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: J.R. Bentley's, Arlington, Tx
Posts: 391
I like the idea of multiple golden ages... Perhaps we could affect them in the editor someday... Some of them could last 1 turn, some 10, some 20...
__________________
"You don't have to be modest if you know you're right."- L. Rigdon
cassembler is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 02:41   #3
Pyrodrew
Prince
 
Pyrodrew's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 679
For Now
*duplicate*
Pyrodrew is offline  
Old December 5, 2001, 02:41   #4
Pyrodrew
Prince
 
Pyrodrew's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 679
For Now
Quote:
Originally posted by Nadexander
Many people are complaing about excessive corruption preventing expansion....Conquering over seas is counter-productive since you only get 1 production and 1 commerce.
Agreed. Currently the only option there really is to build is slowly outward from the center of one's empire. Going overseas is a nightmare, not only from the standard risks & strategic difficulties of having distant cities, but also from the extremely slow naval units and excessive 'distance corruption'. Strategically if you start in England forget about trying to colonize Australia or S.America. You must expand slowly outward - France, Germany & Scandavia are the only logical choices. Excessive corruption also hurts the AI & it's wild expansion more than it does us... we know how to combat it, cut forests for shields, rush build the right building, etc. the AI does not.

Quote:
combat rules skewed in favor of the technologically inferior.
I'm indifferent to this, but agree Modern Age units & maybe some Industrial Age should be improved.

Quote:
The problem, infact, isnt in keeping up. The problem is getting ahead. Once you have beaten down your neighbor and secured a solid area to build on, colonized your entire continent, built your infrastructure, and jacked up science to 4 techs a turn, there is pretty much nothing left to do. All this i usually accomplish by the late medieval/early industrial age.
On Deity? At any rate, getting ahead of an AI is only getting ahead of an AI. But I agree with you that there should be more options. I was expecting more possible improvements to contemplate & select from, but instead they removed some (Supermarket & Stock Exchange)! I often find myself almost forced to create military units because 4shields for 1 gold coin (the oxymoron "wealth") a turn is silly.

Quote:
1) I think you should at least be able increase your culture output by jacking up your luxury rate (say 1 extra culture point for every 100 gold spent). This is historically realistic.
That's not going to change your "sitting around & waiting", but I like the idea.

Quote:
2) Reduce the corruption rate, but add the possibility of large scale civil war. Keep dominant countries on their toes. Allows for continued expansion without a dominant effect of more cities. Adds to challenge because you will have to fight an opponent that is as well developed as yourself
I prefer the other countries remaining the threat. In your example, the AI Civs should have never let you get that HUGE of lead... they should be playing to win, instead they are always just looking for a good deal (which a human leading can exploit). I would suggest dominant countries should have to keep on their toes from all the other smaller & weaker AI Civs banding together to balance the power. Thus suddenly you see most of the other AI Civs placing embargos on you & setting up MPPs with each other. Now the game becomes more challenging. AI Civs letting you get a huge lead does nothing to help them win the game.

Quote:
4)More terraforming/building options. Workers quickly run out of things to do shortly after discovering railroads. There are no critical buildings after hospital and factory (both show up about half way into the game). Give us the option of building small additions, like a second market place that is more expensive and ups commerce by another 25%.
StockExchange was that "second market place".
IF terraforming is added it should be very expensive and/or take a very long time. "No critical buildings after hospital and factory" shows that more city improvements should have been added. I wouldn't mind seeing a "Public Works" Building Improvement to build later, especially during the Industrial Age. Even if I have workers, having the option for some cities would be nice. Would be great for cities where it is too dangerous to keep workers during war.

Quote:
6) Bring in the idea of non-military great leaders.
The editor can do this, but I wouldn't mind seeing non-military leaders... for a hefty price.

Quote:
7) Chances for more than one Golden Age. Either through the wonder thing or by having some difficult but doable percentage(90%?) of cities in WLTKD for a certain number of turns(20?).
90% isn't difficult. And for a 2nd Golden Age I would thrust my luxury rate to 100% for 1 turn to get that... even if I wasn't "bored".

Quote:
Any other ideas on how to make it so there is something to do once you are on top besides wait (many many hours) till the game ends?
Overall I think the building cost for improvements is too low for the few improvements there are to build.

Your huge lead is also the result of something else - the changed terrain details. They made the favorable terrains even better (mined grasslands, oil in plains) & the unfavorable terrains worse (disease jungle, disease flood plains, no oasis, no banannas, no peat) to start in, this creates a MUCH wider gap between the strong & weak Civs, more than it was in Civ2. Starting positions are FAR LESS balanced now. And railroads later just increase this gap worse. Since human players rarely play a game starting in the desert or tundra or especially jungle this decreases the AI at being challenging in the game. Grasslands shouldn't be so... perfect!

Last edited by Pyrodrew; December 5, 2001 at 02:48.
Pyrodrew is offline  
Old December 9, 2001, 20:54   #5
cassembler
Prince
 
cassembler's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: J.R. Bentley's, Arlington, Tx
Posts: 391
I have decided for asthetic reasons not to build roads on mountains... I dunno if this gives me any real disadvantage, but it helps to clean up the map.
__________________
"You don't have to be modest if you know you're right."- L. Rigdon
cassembler is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 02:36   #6
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Says who?
Who says you can't expand overseas? That's the only victory condition that presents any challenge. Anyone who can't kick the AI's @$$ at spaceship or culture ought to be playing Risk or something. Here's my map - I was in on the continent on the right, at the bottom and the right of it. I conquered the Greeks and Egyptians on my continent. Then, I had to go across to the next continent to get the Aztecs.

Finally, I had to attack the large continent. You can't tell now, but the Russians and Germans were on it. I attacked from both shores, consolidating quick wins, when the Russians attacked. This sort of forced the issue. I conquered the Russians, and just conquered the Germans. I have pushed the English into a pocket at the bottom, and will be liquidating the French soon. I am taking cities at the rate of 6 to 8 per turn. I figure I have 8 turns left before I conquer the planet.

Venger
(Yes, that's right, I have something like 200+ workers, over 300+ armed units, and maybe 150 cities...)
Attached Thumbnails:
Click image for larger version

Name:	civ.jpg
Views:	670
Size:	32.5 KB
ID:	7363  
Venger is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 06:00   #7
Wrong_shui
Warlord
 
Wrong_shui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a field
Posts: 183
That place on the right looks remotley like the UK, how nice.
__________________
Im sorry Mr Civ Franchise, Civ3 was DOA
Wrong_shui is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 11:41   #8
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
The claim is that there is nothing to do once one has obtained a dominant position in the game.

I fail to see how this is caused by the caps that were put in place to make it more difficult to excel. In fact, I would have expected the argument to go the other way; because in Civ an insurmountable tech lead (or other lead) is so hard, it is much more challenging to play even when you've established a somewhat dominant position.

If you empire has a good 20 cities, generating blissful science and accumulating wealth, each defended by 3 pikemen, you would have been ok in Civ2. In civ3, your neighbour may ally the whole world against you and ride in an army of 30 knights! Goodbye cities!

And Nadexander even mentions how difficult he finds overseas conquest... isn't this a challenge really?

I think the problem lies in the Cultural victory... this is just a boring way of winning by definition. Instead of slumbering and waiting for Cathedrals to become avaialable to gain more culture, you could wake up and lay waste to your opponents.

I also suspect that playing Deity might lessen the potential boredom.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 11:49   #9
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Quote:
If you empire has a good 20 cities, generating blissful science and accumulating wealth, each defended by 3 pikemen, you would have been ok in Civ2. In civ3, your neighbour may ally the whole world against you and ride in an army of 30 knights! Goodbye cities!


30 Knights verses 60 "Tank Killer" Pikemen? Not a chance. Maybe 60 Knights verses 30 Pikemen, but even then...

rid102 is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 11:51   #10
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Quote:
That place on the right looks remotley like the UK, how nice.
Minus Wales.

That was the bit I liked.
rid102 is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 11:53   #11
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong_shui
That place on the right looks remotley like the UK, how nice.
I noticed that too, Ireland is there but deformed.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 11:57   #12
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy
The claim is that there is nothing to do once one has obtained a dominant position in the game.
Absolutely. The resources concept compounds this - I have all the aluminum. Game over. I have all the oil. Game over. Boring boring boring.

Quote:
And Nadexander even mentions how difficult he finds overseas conquest... isn't this a challenge really?
A cross ocean invasion SHOULD be a real bi+ch.

Quote:
I think the problem lies in the Cultural victory... this is just a boring way of winning by definition.
A-FREAKING-MEN. The UN is just as big a joke. Spaceship is only slightly less lame.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 11:57   #13
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by rid102




30 Knights verses 60 "Tank Killer" Pikemen? Not a chance. Maybe 60 Knights verses 30 Pikemen, but even then...

Note how I did not say the knight would take ALL cities... I meant the enemy would certainly roll over more than a handful of them. Bad enough if you ask me... I am used to the never-lose-a-city Civ2.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 12:00   #14
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


Absolutely. The resources concept compounds this - I have all the aluminum. Game over. I have all the oil. Game over. Boring boring boring.



A cross ocean invasion SHOULD be a real bi+ch.



A-FREAKING-MEN. The UN is just as big a joke. Spaceship is only slightly less lame.

Venger
Seeing how one will usually have to engage in 'difficult' overseas conquest to obtain all resources of a kind, I conclude that you fully agree with me.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 12:01   #15
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Quote:
I meant the enemy would certainly roll over more than a handful of them.
Hmmm... perhaps if the AI had the sense to coordinate a half-decent assault.

Or you could just bide your time and wait for cultural reversion...

Quote:
I am used to the never-lose-a-city Civ2.
I am used to pikemen-tank-buster Civ3...
rid102 is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 12:49   #16
Wrong_shui
Warlord
 
Wrong_shui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a field
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally posted by rid102


Minus Wales.

That was the bit I liked.
DAMN TRUE
__________________
Im sorry Mr Civ Franchise, Civ3 was DOA
Wrong_shui is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 13:06   #17
Redstar
Warlord
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 185
to Venger
what res is that picture? the units look nice and big.

if you want a challenge let the other civs live into the industrial era. Then try and take them all out starting in 1975.

Use a big map.

Those guys wander around with clusters of 24 modern tanks.
the sea units they come up with are even more impressive.
Redstar is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 13:29   #18
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy
The claim is that there is nothing to do once one has obtained a dominant position in the game.

I fail to see how this is caused by the caps that were put in place to make it more difficult to excel. In fact, I would have expected the argument to go the other way; because in Civ an insurmountable tech lead (or other lead) is so hard, it is much more challenging to play even when you've established a somewhat dominant position.
Actually, think of it this way: I'm at a point where ANY science spending between 30% and 100% gives me exactly the same results. Whether I'm researching space flight, or going back to discover monarchy which I've missed the first time around, I still can't get under 4 turns.

On one hand, this means that I have more money than I can spend, since upping the science over 30% doesn't help much. (And more realistically, I could drop it to 20% and still stay ahead of the competition quite comfortably.)

On the other hand, it means I don't really need to stay a democracy, either. I could just as well go Monarchy and have less unit support costs, less war weariness, and military police to keep the population happy. Or I could go the Communist way and also get to be able to build anything in those far off cities, without rushing production.

I'm just saying that hard-coded limits are a lame solution. E.g., off the top of my head:

1) There's already a piece of code that makes it cheaper do discover something, if everyone else has it. Make the effect more so. If everyone else in the world knows how to make iron swords, chances are I don't need many turns to figure it out too. (And it should be based on HOW FAR behind you are, too, if it isn't already. E.g., once one or more nations are already in the modern times, everyone else should have an easier time finishing discovering the rest of their ancient technologies.)

2) Make science alliances possible. Two backwards countries could join their forces to throw their combined science output at a single discovery. So if I dominate half the world and everyone else is still in the stone ages, they could do that to catch up. (The disadvantage being that both of you get it that tech, AND you'd automatically trade all techs when you sign the alliance. So it's not something you'd want to do when you're the only nation in the lead, but may come in handy when you're both far behind.)

3) Make the science production scale somewhat less linear. I.e., 100% science spending shouldn't give me exactly twice the advancement speed of 50% spending, and much less than 5 times the speed of only 20% spending. There's only so much that you can rush science.

4) It should become much easier to discover a technology, once you've won a fight against a unit based on that technology. I.e., if I don't have "The Wheel" and successfully defend against chariots, I might learn something in the process. (That's very roughly speaking how the Egyptians got chariots in real history, and also how the Romans got to have a fleet. Well, not exactly. But it could be approximated like that in the game, since supporting the actual historical circumstances would be well beyond the scope of a Civ game.)

And so on. There are TONS of ways to prevent an absolute scientific lead, without something as heavy handed as turn caps.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 14:04   #19
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy
If you empire has a good 20 cities, generating blissful science and accumulating wealth, each defended by 3 pikemen, you would have been ok in Civ2. In civ3, your neighbour may ally the whole world against you and ride in an army of 30 knights! Goodbye cities!
Correction. Let's take this scenario: I have 20 cities, blissfully generating science, defended by pikemen. Well, actually they're defended by 2 musketmen and 1 cannon each, but same idea.

Then the Babylonians declare war on me, for no obvious reason. (I swear I never posted on their boards) The Babylonians bring the Zulu into an Alliance against me. The Zulu bring the Iroquois. The Iroquois bring the French. In just two turns.

Now I have two options:

A) Bend over, grab my ankles and hope they use lubricant. (Well, not really, since the AI won't really send knights against me, it will send hordes of obsolete archers and stuff.)

B) Bring the whole continent to the party.

So I choose B. I contact the Russians and offer some money if they'll join me against the Babylonians. The Russians bring the English against the Babylonians. Those Babylonian armies are already starting to turn around. The Babylonians bring the Zulu against the English, too. The English bring the French against the Zulu. (Even though France is still also part of an alliance against me, which includes the Zulu.) The Zulu bring Russia against the French. Russia brings Germany against the French AND the original Babylonians in two consecutive turns.

Soon the whole continent is fighting each other, instead of fighting me. None of my cities is even remotely in danger. (There may be one or two bowmen per turn actually headed my way, but that's all.)

Try it. It works every single time. The AI's just itching to get into an alliance against someone, works just as well in your favour, not only against you.

Meanwhile, just out of sheer boredom I wipe out the Zulu AND take half of the Iroquois and Babylonian teritories with only minimal losses. I could take all of the Iroquois, but wth, I'm already having too much corruption so I accept a peace. I do however make a point of hunting down every single Zulu re-spawned capital, until they stay wiped out.

The Germans, however, don't know when to finish, so they wipe out the Babylonians for me. Since newly conquered cities have no culture, I rush-buy cathedrals and universities all around them, and in a couple dozen turns they start deffecting to me without a fight. Nice. Thanks, Germany. (Well, not really, since they only bring more corruption.)

As a result of that screwed up World War, somehow Russia, England and France end up fighting each other, even though they started as allies. They never know when to stop, and Russia expands way out of hand, pushing England and France into small corners of the map. I end up dumping a steady supply of gold and resources into both England and France, just to keep them fighting the Russians. (Not that I needed to, but I'm bored and have more gold than I need for science.)

So, well, it looks to me like I never really was in more danger than in Civ 2.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 10, 2001, 16:12   #20
Nadexander
Warlord
 
Nadexander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Saratoga, California
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy
And Nadexander even mentions how difficult he finds overseas conquest... isn't this a challenge really?
Not difficult. Just pointless. Lots of micromanagement in hauling crap loads of units (assuming i am lacking a single source of aluminum, rubber, or oil in my entire continent which isnt all that unlikely. This is btw, not much of a disadvantage. 2 cavalry are just as effective as 1 tank when backed up by proper artillery. Actually longbowmen would do if you had enough artillery.) across 20 sea squares and following them around with ships without the help of any kind of stack movement. Then proceed to pound the AI's cities to under size 6, flatten all the defenders and roll in. Wow now i have a completly useless city that even after growing and devloping will give me 1 shield and 1 gold. So i rush build a temple to keep it from revolting, a harbor to bring in the luxeries, and a barracks to heal my troops. Move on to the next city. Lather rinse repeat. Now i got a bunch of cities that are damn useless. Either i raze them and take home a bunch of slaves or i start selling them to the highest bidder. Nothing worth taking nor keeping. Just cut it up into a bunch of pieces to stunt growth. Give away cities to other civs in a fragmented manner so that they all just keep fighting each other and can never bother you again. cant colonize cause colonies are wothless. cant subjegate cause they have nothing to give. They wont have anything to give until you give them back theyre cities. But once you give them back they wont have a reason to give you anything. the diplomatic model doesnt let you stipulate any kind interesting peace deals. So were back to square one. When your ahead you either destroy the AI (literally raze all their cities) or you wait for them to catch up. No other options? I thought that was one of the points of civ3: that you would have an option besides warfare for getting ahead. I guess not.
Nadexander is offline  
Old December 11, 2001, 09:45   #21
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by Moraelin


Actually, think of it this way: I'm at a point where ANY science spending between 30% and 100% gives me exactly the same results. Whether I'm researching space flight, or going back to discover monarchy which I've missed the first time around, I still can't get under 4 turns.

On one hand, this means that I have more money than I can spend, since upping the science over 30% doesn't help much. (And more realistically, I could drop it to 20% and still stay ahead of the competition quite comfortably.)

On the other hand, it means I don't really need to stay a democracy, either. I could just as well go Monarchy and have less unit support costs, less war weariness, and military police to keep the population happy. Or I could go the Communist way and also get to be able to build anything in those far off cities, without rushing production.

I'm just saying that hard-coded limits are a lame solution. E.g., off the top of my head:

1) There's already a piece of code that makes it cheaper do discover something, if everyone else has it. Make the effect more so. If everyone else in the world knows how to make iron swords, chances are I don't need many turns to figure it out too. (And it should be based on HOW FAR behind you are, too, if it isn't already. E.g., once one or more nations are already in the modern times, everyone else should have an easier time finishing discovering the rest of their ancient technologies.)

2) Make science alliances possible. Two backwards countries could join their forces to throw their combined science output at a single discovery. So if I dominate half the world and everyone else is still in the stone ages, they could do that to catch up. (The disadvantage being that both of you get it that tech, AND you'd automatically trade all techs when you sign the alliance. So it's not something you'd want to do when you're the only nation in the lead, but may come in handy when you're both far behind.)

3) Make the science production scale somewhat less linear. I.e., 100% science spending shouldn't give me exactly twice the advancement speed of 50% spending, and much less than 5 times the speed of only 20% spending. There's only so much that you can rush science.

4) It should become much easier to discover a technology, once you've won a fight against a unit based on that technology. I.e., if I don't have "The Wheel" and successfully defend against chariots, I might learn something in the process. (That's very roughly speaking how the Egyptians got chariots in real history, and also how the Romans got to have a fleet. Well, not exactly. But it could be approximated like that in the game, since supporting the actual historical circumstances would be well beyond the scope of a Civ game.)

And so on. There are TONS of ways to prevent an absolute scientific lead, without something as heavy handed as turn caps.
While I do agree that a rigid cap isn't the most elegant solution, the choices -except no. 3- you present would only serve to accelerate the rate of discoveries made by the player and the AI.

Number 3 looks nice, but it would come down to something strikingly similar to the 4-turn cap we have now -and the principle behind implementing it is the same.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 11, 2001, 09:49   #22
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by Moraelin

Soon the whole continent is fighting each other, instead of fighting me. None of my cities is even remotely in danger. (There may be one or two bowmen per turn actually headed my way, but that's all.)

Try it. It works every single time. The AI's just itching to get into an alliance against someone, works just as well in your favour, not only against you.
Well this little story looks nice and all, but it doesn't really prove anything. I could just point out that you'd be lost without the help of your allies. What if there were no others nearby? What if your neighbours would not ally with you? What if their demands were unreasonable?

In the very least, you were forced to take action, whereas in Civ2 you could sit tight and do nothing, expecting perhaps a few isolated units to kill themselves attacking your cities.

I maintain that there is more of a challenge to Civ3 than to Civ2. It may still be easy in various ways (too easy to make allies, maybe), but it's an improvement.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 11, 2001, 09:51   #23
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by Nadexander


Not difficult. Just pointless. Lots of micromanagement in hauling crap loads of units (assuming i am lacking a single source of aluminum, rubber, or oil in my entire continent which isnt all that unlikely. This is btw, not much of a disadvantage. 2 cavalry are just as effective as 1 tank when backed up by proper artillery. Actually longbowmen would do if you had enough artillery.) across 20 sea squares and following them around with ships without the help of any kind of stack movement. Then proceed to pound the AI's cities to under size 6, flatten all the defenders and roll in. Wow now i have a completly useless city that even after growing and devloping will give me 1 shield and 1 gold. So i rush build a temple to keep it from revolting, a harbor to bring in the luxeries, and a barracks to heal my troops. Move on to the next city. Lather rinse repeat. Now i got a bunch of cities that are damn useless. Either i raze them and take home a bunch of slaves or i start selling them to the highest bidder. Nothing worth taking nor keeping. Just cut it up into a bunch of pieces to stunt growth. Give away cities to other civs in a fragmented manner so that they all just keep fighting each other and can never bother you again. cant colonize cause colonies are wothless. cant subjegate cause they have nothing to give. They wont have anything to give until you give them back theyre cities. But once you give them back they wont have a reason to give you anything. the diplomatic model doesnt let you stipulate any kind interesting peace deals. So were back to square one. When your ahead you either destroy the AI (literally raze all their cities) or you wait for them to catch up. No other options? I thought that was one of the points of civ3: that you would have an option besides warfare for getting ahead. I guess not.
What *would* you have wanted? Rewards for your conquest? Wouldn't that just make the whole deal easier, and wouldn't the massive increase in wealth be equally meaningless as you were obviously already far ahead of your opponents?
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 11, 2001, 10:22   #24
rid102
Warlord
 
rid102's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 135
I think Nadexander has a fair point.

Quote:
What *would* you have wanted? Rewards for your conquest? Wouldn't that just make the whole deal easier, and wouldn't the massive increase in wealth be equally meaningless as you were obviously already far ahead of your opponents?
Well normally, you do fight wars for rewards don't you? A war is not really worth fighting if there's nothing to be gained from it (unless your vindictive and/or just like attrition).

Massive increase in wealth is not meaningless, it's devalued but is not meaningless.

I don't see why the player shouldn't be rewarded by making some aspects easier if they've attained certain acheivements. E.g. have "historical events" like Wonders except you don't build them, you acheive them. Say something like Magellan is given to the Civ who has mapped the most sea tiles by the time Navigation is discovered (or similar) and have juxtapopsed "historic event" conditions to make it very difficult to get all.

Otherwise what real point is there if you're never going to have any tangible rewards to chase?
rid102 is offline  
Old December 11, 2001, 10:41   #25
Akka
Prince
 
Akka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In front of my computer.
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy


While I do agree that a rigid cap isn't the most elegant solution, the choices -except no. 3- you present would only serve to accelerate the rate of discoveries made by the player and the AI.

Number 3 looks nice, but it would come down to something strikingly similar to the 4-turn cap we have now -and the principle behind implementing it is the same.
Not at all. The cap is like a barrier : you can put 20 % or 100 %, it's just the same. What Moraelin propose is a CURVE. 100 % would give MORE than 20 %. Just not a plain linear x5. I don't know if this would work in the game, but the idea is interesting.

Moraelin, I suggest you to post these ideas in the "Desires For Future Civ3 Patches (A thread saving thread)" if you do not already did it. It would be a waste to have these ideas kept lost in this thread.
__________________
Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.
Akka is offline  
Old December 12, 2001, 06:45   #26
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by rid102
I think Nadexander has a fair point.



Well normally, you do fight wars for rewards don't you? A war is not really worth fighting if there's nothing to be gained from it (unless your vindictive and/or just like attrition).

Massive increase in wealth is not meaningless, it's devalued but is not meaningless.

I don't see why the player shouldn't be rewarded by making some aspects easier if they've attained certain acheivements. E.g. have "historical events" like Wonders except you don't build them, you acheive them. Say something like Magellan is given to the Civ who has mapped the most sea tiles by the time Navigation is discovered (or similar) and have juxtapopsed "historic event" conditions to make it very difficult to get all.

Otherwise what real point is there if you're never going to have any tangible rewards to chase?
Oh but there are rewards already. The enemy is squished! Their culture lost. You get either a 'mediocre' city (with territory and means of culturally taking more -which adds massively to your score) or a lot of workers, bare terrain on which to found a new city of your own, some cash, and maybe more on the negotiating table.

So a conquest is far from meaningless... while it does not yield benefits that will catapult you to Godlike status at the same time.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 12, 2001, 06:46   #27
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Not at all. The cap is like a barrier : you can put 20 % or 100 %, it's just the same. What Moraelin propose is a CURVE. 100 % would give MORE than 20 %. Just not a plain linear x5. I don't know if this would work in the game, but the idea is interesting.

Moraelin, I suggest you to post these ideas in the "Desires For Future Civ3 Patches (A thread saving thread)" if you do not already did it. It would be a waste to have these ideas kept lost in this thread.
I understood what he meant. My point is that this would result in a game situation that is very similar to the one we have now.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old December 12, 2001, 07:50   #28
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
No. The whole idea isn't that it becomes anything near what we have now. The idea isn't to accelerate it for everyone, but to make it hard to stay ahead. And, yes, to replace the abrupt caps that you can plan around, with curves that aren't as black and white. The idea is that even if you're ahead, you'd need every single coin you can squeeze into scientiffic reasearch. Why?

- Because numbers 1 and 4 mean you'd be dragging everyone with you. E.g., per number 4, once I send tanks against someone, they might get the idea to make their own tanks, and maybe even make them better. (The sole reason Germany took tanks seriously in WW2 was because in WW1 they had their rear handed to them by tanks.) Sure, they wouldn't get the technology immediately, but they might get 50% off on researching the required technologies.

Any tech superiority would be short lived. Sure, you may have some 20-50 turns where you own a technology alone. Maybe 100 if you're really far ahead of your time. Then everyone would catch up. It would be impossible to be making spaceships while the rest of the world is in the stone age. So you'd permanently need to struggle to stay ahead.

- Because number 2 is not something you'd want to do when you're in the lead anyway, since in that situation you'd just be giving technology away for free. You'd be just creating a country that's exactly as advanced as you are, and which might betray and attack you with that technology. On the other hand, if you're a small country with nothing to lose, and it's just a matter of time before you're conquered by the Big Brother, you might try finding a few other doomed countries and try to catch up together.

- Because number 3 brings in a non-linearity in the curve. You COULD go for researching something in only 3 turns instead of 4, but it's going to take a MASSIVE financial effort to do so. Are you willing to make it, for an extra turn of being ahead, or are your money better used elsewhere? It's something that needs a strategic decision, instead of "Oh, I've reached the cap anyway, I have no choice but to reduce science spending."
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 12, 2001, 08:12   #29
Moraelin
Warlord
 
Moraelin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Well this little story looks nice and all, but it doesn't really prove anything. I could just point out that you'd be lost without the help of your allies. What if there were no others nearby? What if your neighbours would not ally with you? What if their demands were unreasonable?
Yes, I would very well be lost without the help of my allies, but the point is that there'll always be someone willing to ally with you. And then there'll always be someone else willing to ally with them. And so on.

I'm not talking making allies with my old friends the Russians, whom I've traded with for ever. I'm talking about "ugh... I there's some country called Russia at the other end of the continent, that some scout told me about 1000 years ago. I think they have two heads and sacrifice small babies to Satan, or some such. Let's see if they want to be allies with me."

Mind you, I'm not really saying it's a step back from Civ 2, or anything. And indeed, after the patch the AI will send 60 units on one city, so ANY defense will eventually crumble if you just sit and wait. The first time I had a war after the patch, and saw those huge stacks charging my cities for the first time, I lost half a dozen cities before I even got my own units moving. And I've seen some massive landings, Normandy style, on one tip of the continent while I'm fighting elsewhere. Nice. I like the post-patch AI a lot more ever since.

Just that, well, after taking the initial sucker-punch you figure out how it works, and it's not THAT much more difficult. I doubt that I would get the same sucker punch a second time.

It also becomes a lot easier in the late game, so it doesn't really reduce the boredom when you're at the top. I mean, ok, in the early game just moving around is a problem. But once I have 100+ workers and railroads everywhere, I just have some tanks fortified somewhere and can quickly move them to intercept those stacks of archers before they get anywhere NEAR my cities. E.g., in that Normandy style invasion, even though I had like 5 stacks of a dozen units each converging on one city, none of them actually got anywhere near that city. I didn't even use tanks, I brought a dozen Cossacs that I still had from a previous war. Zero turns to move them by rail, and they made mincemeat out of the warriors and spearmen and bowmen that the AI was sending.
Moraelin is offline  
Old December 12, 2001, 08:37   #30
Akka
Prince
 
Akka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:00
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In front of my computer.
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy


I understood what he meant. My point is that this would result in a game situation that is very similar to the one we have now.
No.
Actually, it just means nothing to improve the science rate once you are at 4 turns for a tech. WIth a curve, it would still accelerate the research, just not as much. The situation would be different. I know that there is times I just want to get a tech, no matter how much it cost to me.
__________________
Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.
Akka 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 14:00.


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