Global Catastrophe

Destroyer · May 30, 2002, 17:18

Im starting to find the end-games a bit tedious now. Its all a bit samey.

I remembered in Civ2 there was a great scenario were aliens invaded, and you were left in a situation where you had to research new powerful units quickly, or get wiped out. Kinda like ID4 without the cheese.

It would be good if there was an option to have these sort of events switched on for the modern part of the game (or more interesting for me personally).

Perhaps you could have a meteor hit the ground and wipe out 25% of the planet, or catastrophic global warming and rising water levels.

What d'ya think?

Oh you think Im nutter......

Stuie · May 30, 2002, 17:22

I think Firaxis needs to beef up the modern age (more units, buildings, wonders, more UN options, some sort of "Economic" victory condition) rather than introduce the fantastic.

Jaybe · May 30, 2002, 17:34

Sure, it can be boring, and the late game/modern age can be a lot of tedium. OTOH, VERY interesing things can happen (or might not), such as some upstart declaring war on you or someone else. Or, they beat you to building the UN and knock you out of the game -- surprise!

I either get real patient and continue my micromanaging style, or I fortify my workers into 4-high stacks for easy pollution deployment as needed. Check in on the neighbors on occasion, and off to the next turn; next turn; next turn (record's stuck, record's stuck, record's ....)

As far as cataclysms are concerned, why wipe out all your hours of hard playing? To me, your examples are "everyone loses" options. Either continue playing or announce yourself the winner and start another game (I have never done the latter (yet)).

JB

Destroyer · May 30, 2002, 17:52

I dont mean as in every game you play, but as an option that can be turned on an off. If you want something a bit different.

Jaybe, Your point about the UN thing is an example of a "cataclysm wiping out hours of play"- game over! And its implementation is as "fantatsic" as sending a ship to alpha centauri, or the whole world happily uniting under the UN banner.

Jaybe · May 30, 2002, 18:36

Destroyer,
Good thing we have selectable victory conditions, eh?

JB

Coracle · May 30, 2002, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Destroyer
Im starting to find the end-games a bit tedious now. Its all a bit samey.

I remembered in Civ2 there was a great scenario were aliens invaded, and you were left in a situation where you had to research new powerful units quickly, or get wiped out. Kinda like ID4 without the cheese.

It would be good if there was an option to have these sort of events switched on for the modern part of the game (or more interesting for me personally).

Perhaps you could have a meteor hit the ground and wipe out 25% of the planet, or catastrophic global warming and rising water levels.

What d'ya think?

Oh you think Im nutter......

I guess we know Civ 3 is bombing out when Civ fans start hoping during a game a METEOR hits earth to liven things up!!

You bet it gets tedious, especially in the Modern Era. After Civ 2 came out a lot of us asked for such as military theater commanders or "rally points", or whatever could free us from the tedium of moving a hundred individual units. Firaxis ignored us, of course.

If we had scenario-building we wouldn't have to play through an entire game to get to (hopefully) Modern Units; we could have a scenario that starts with them, and keeps their number manageable. But Firaxis left that out so they could SELL it to us later.

No sale, fellas. No sale.

Tuberski · May 30, 2002, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

I guess we know Civ 3 is bombing out when Civ fans start hoping during a game a METEOR hits earth to liven things up!!

You bet it gets tedious, especially in the Modern Era. After Civ 2 came out a lot of us asked for such as military theater commanders or "rally points", or whatever could free us from the tedium of moving a hundred individual units. Firaxis ignored us, of course.

If we had scenario-building we wouldn't have to play through an entire game to get to (hopefully) Modern Units; we could have a scenario that starts with them, and keeps their number manageable. But Firaxis left that out so they could SELL it to us later.

No sale, fellas. No sale.

Um, I don't think Firaxis made Civ 2. You probably meant Civ 3, but we all know you have to mention Civ 2 somewhere.

Destroyer · May 30, 2002, 20:40

I find most of the victory conditions a silly, but if Im being really honest, Ive yet to complete a game. It gets too slow after 1900 (playing on a 250x250 map). It does get a bit C&C at that point.

Stuie · May 30, 2002, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Destroyer
I find most of the victory conditions a silly, but if Im being really honest, Ive yet to complete a game. It gets too slow after 1900 (playing on a 250x250 map). It does get a bit C&C at that point.

But we asked for more victory conditions (relative to past Civ games), and we got them. Sure they're somewhat contrived, but we got more!

250x250!! That must slow down! I find playing 16 civs on 140x140 is the largest map I can do and remain playable throughout. But we asked for larger maps and 16 civs, and we got them! Firaxis built the game to be played 8 Civs, 100x100. The larger maps/16 civs are a direct response to our requests.

Civ3 is largely a product of what fans asked for, and some people do it a huge disservice complaining about the product, when Firaxis really was attentive to a great number of reasonable requests.

Destroyer · May 30, 2002, 21:17

I only play with 4 civs, or else is slows down in the indutrial age badly.

I bought a new pc to almost coinside with its release - A P4 1700 with 512k ram. My first game was with 16 civs on a 250x250 map. Didnt last more than as far as gunpowder (were talking 5 minute computer turns)

I think Civ3 is the best game Ive ever played, but Ill still be its greatest critic.

Its one game that will never be perfect, as everyone has their own opinions. But its only by expressing those opinions that the game will evolve (just load up civ1 to see)

Most of the commens people make are because they love the game so much.

Critisising can be good to (EH? Mr Lucas!!)

Stuie · May 30, 2002, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Destroyer
Critisising can be good to (EH? Mr Lucas!!)

I agree, as long as it is constructive. There are some posters on these forums that are anything but constructive - they basically whine over and over about the same thing without advancing the discussion. Usually I try not to respond to them.

Destroyer · May 30, 2002, 21:47

Well, I was trying to be constructive here. I love the game as it is though.

Theseus · May 30, 2002, 23:35

Six months ago, I knew the Modern Age sucked, so I never even tried to finish a game. Even post-1.21, I've only finished one.

BUT... man that game rocked.

Coracle and jt can flame me all night long, but with a little openmindedness and experimentation, even the endgame can be "edge of seat."

[yeah, I know, theoretically the player / customer shouldn't have to extend so, but... I'm OK with that]

Destroyer: 1) Use the city governors - Initially, I turn on "manage moods." Later, especially when cities hit 12 pop, I turn on "productivity." Also, shift-A most of your workers. Those two settings take care of most of the tedium, except bombardment. Then, get creative... think like you are Machiavelli: metagame, geopolitics, massive invasions, economic ruin, leader assassinations (OK, can't do that), you get my meaning. I swear, I sit in business meetings and when people piss me off, I think of them as Bismarck, and craft devious strategies for their ruin. That's fun.

m1066ad · May 31, 2002, 05:12

Hmm, I use the huge map, and 8 civs, usually, and it doesn't take the puter long, to move.....takes me 15 minutes a turn, after about the 1700's, lol, but it's not the puter's fault...takes forever ta move about 500 units each turn...sheesh!
1.33 Athlon, 384 mb ram
I'm trying it on regent, now, as the Egyptians (my personal favorite, tho the I've had good luck with the Iriquois, too) and it's 1190 A.D., and I've been at war with the Romans, and Americans, and Aztecs for about 2000 yrs....grrrrr...the greeks were the 1st to declare war on me, finally, the second time I made peace with them, it stuck....the Romans and Americans have both stabbed me in the back...made peace, moved their units in, and attacked! I'm still holdin my own, tho...barely...

Nym · May 31, 2002, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie

I agree, as long as it is constructive. There are some posters on these forums that are anything but constructive - they basically whine over and over about the same thing without advancing the discussion.

Absolutely agree.

Nym · May 31, 2002, 06:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Then, get creative... think like you are Machiavelli: metagame, geopolitics, massive invasions, economic ruin, leader assassinations (OK, can't do that), you get my meaning. I swear, I sit in business meetings and when people piss me off, I think of them as Bismarck, and craft devious strategies for their ruin. That's fun.

Yes. In my current game for example, playing the Egyptians, I was once in critical situation:

the Iroquois were my direct neighbors and had cities within my empire (unable to get them through culture flip ),
Persians were close to me, separated from my empire by about two Iroquois' cities,
Persians had ROP and MPP with Iroquois and were furious toward me (why? absolutely no idea...).

Then, Babs persuaded Persians to join them in a war against me.

. If I just had once counterattacked the Persians to defend myself, I would have been quite surely destroyed by Iroquois. I so tried to:

involve Aztecs, Persians' neighbours on the other side, in the war against the Persians,
conclude a MPP with the Iroquois (the idea was to wait Persia attack me, which should probably trigger my MPP with Iroquois and protect me).

and I succeeded!

At the end I was saved, had built a new city where Iroquois destroyed a Persian one, got an old Iroquois city just conquered by the Babs (and then took by me without effort

).

Jawa Jocky · May 31, 2002, 11:16

I can play the entire modern era in 2-3hours on my PII 450 with 256ram. Stop micromanaging.

1) Automate all of your workers. If your at war you might want a few as army engineers, but telling this idiots what to do every 3 turns wastes a lot of time.

2) Fortify all of your units. If your not at war fortify everything. Of course you can send units to underdefended cities, but fortify them when they get there.

3) Play on SMALL maps and/or w/ more water area. Less cities = less decisions for you and less AI time between turns. I usually play emperor level small map with maximun oceans. The lack of cities actually slows down tech so you end up getting space race victories around 2000 a.d.

Jaybe · May 31, 2002, 11:26

What!! Play on less than a huge or large map???? NOOOO!!!
Run Away, Run Away!!!

The only time I've played on a standard or smaller map was in the tutorial game. 180x180 huge maps aren't bad. Just 2-5 minutes between turns (16 civs).

JB

MiloMilo · May 31, 2002, 11:31

Destroyer, that is a looong time to wait between turns. I've got an Athlon 1ghz, 256k ram, and with large maps /12 civs I never have to wait more than 20-30 seconds in the industrial age (admmittedly, I've never played into the modern age, but I'm gonna try this time, I'm really gonna try...)

I suspect that like me, you think a game with 4 civs is incredibly boring. I don't understand peopl who use big maps with few civs. I like to feel like one among many with this game, and I like there to be lots of asymmetrical power balances. But with 16 civs and a huge map things will take very long. So I compromise and play large/12. A trick that has worked for me: use a map with 80% water instead of 70%. 14% fewer cities, 14% fewer units, at least 14% less waiting time.

Another thing I like about lots of civs, and I know this is off topic but whatever, is that you get more competitive games. I'm still mastering Regent level, so I don't want to step up and take disadvantages on monarch, but I do want a competitive game. The more civs, the more comp for resources and especially wonders. People who find the game too easy should think about trying this as an alternative to just pumping up the difficulty slider.

Catt · May 31, 2002, 14:22

I play on a Dell laptop with PII 450 mz (maybe -- could be 400mz). Only 128 Ram. Huge maps, 16 civs, late modern era, only 3 - 4 minutes between turns when AI is at war. 1-2 minutes when world at peace. (In late game I tend to have governors manage, shift-A just about all workers, and keep units fortified unless in transit).

Weird the variation between systems.

* Back on-topic. *

I would only want random "catastrophes" if they were very mild catastrophes (i.e., lose a couple of pop points, lose a few accumulated shields of production, destroy a tile or two of improvements). Anything much greater would simply add randomness that cannot reasonably be countered with appropriate tactics / strategy.

Bad happenings w/o counter-tactics = frustration, and nothing more.

Catt

Jaybe · May 31, 2002, 15:03

In addition to global warming, I want general climatic changes, where over a period of time you will have individual tiles change (e.g., where grassland and plains are adjacent, one might change to the other). In a particular area, might happen once in 10 turns or so.

As the world turns, it changes too.

JB

kring · May 31, 2002, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

I would only want random "catastrophes" if they were very mild catastrophes (i.e., lose a couple of pop points, lose a few accumulated shields of production, destroy a tile or two of improvements). Anything much greater would simply add randomness that cannot reasonably be countered with appropriate tactics / strategy.

Bad happenings w/o counter-tactics = frustration, and nothing more.

Catt

That would make it more realistic for the posters that say it's not realistic enough. Reminds of AH's Civ board game with the Calamity Cards. Some were tradeable and some weren't.

I agree with you that I wouldn't want it too unbalancing, for either side. I do miss the Civil War from Civ 2, though; made the game more interesting regardless of which civs benefited/lost from it.

One advantage is that typically you are outnumbered at the start of the game, then collectively the other civs would be hit more frequently than your civ.

planetfall · May 31, 2002, 15:48

Global problems, let's see like firestorms, tornadoes, Godzilla, UFO's, earthquake, etc.

They don't work. SimCity tried all that and it does not cover up either a boring game design or a boring style of play.

Use the editor and forum ideas to reshape your expectations and game experience. For example, last night I played 2 games. But to do that I limited both start time and end time. I loaded a saved game from 2000BC and played until 350BC. Goal was to see how different strategies would play out with the same initial setting. It is amazing how much difference there is in AI play depending on how you play. I don't play vs AI, I play vs me. Win if I do better this time, lose if play lost ground, draw if about the same.

If always winning, increase difficulty level. If always losing, decrease difficulty level or edit the things that bug you about the game. Most of all you don't need 200 workers. The more workers, the slower the game.

Destroyer · May 31, 2002, 15:52

The default huge map is still very small. I thinks its only 150x150 - TINY by comparison!!!!!!

250 x250 is only available through customising the game. I dont mind my turns taking ages, and i enjoy micromanaging even at this stage.

It takes many hours to find another civ, days if other continents are involved.

I also increase the research modifier to 300%

I like long games!

Miznia · May 31, 2002, 16:51

Quote:

Planetfall said:
Global problems, let's see like firestorms, tornadoes, Godzilla, UFO's, earthquake, etc.
They don't work. SimCity tried all that and it does not cover up either a boring game design or a boring style of play.

But Civ is about ALL aspects of maintaining a civ in history. If you leave out disasters, you're sacrificing game depth in favor of the warmonger or the builder. It's not all about that, or it shouldn't be.

Also, as I posted in another thread, a unit that goes exploring into black areas should randomly die, or perhaps mutiny and go barbarian on you.

Destroyer · May 31, 2002, 17:01

Why do they not work???

Isnt that what scenarios do????

The only thing is you would be determining what happens prior to the scenario.

Journier · June 1, 2002, 00:44

its odd.... my computers =

1.35ghz athlon
256mb ddr ram
40gb IBM hard drive 7200 rpm
8kha mobo
geforce 2 gts vid card.

and ive NEVER with 16 civ's playing on marla's world map never had over a 1:30 second turn cycle thingie...

It sorta makes me feel good that Im not getting such long delays.

Now when i play on my 500 mhz 192mb ram laptop it takes like
5 minutes with 8 civilizations and a standard- large size map

gl

Panag · June 1, 2002, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Journier
its odd.... my computers =

1.35ghz athlon
256mb ddr ram
40gb IBM hard drive 7200 rpm
8kha mobo
geforce 2 gts vid card.

and ive NEVER with 16 civ's playing on marla's world map never had over a 1:30 second turn cycle thingie...

It sorta makes me feel good that Im not getting such long delays.

Now when i play on my 500 mhz 192mb ram laptop it takes like
5 minutes with 8 civilizations and a standard- large size map

gl

hi ,

the ram , its type and the graphics card , ........they can do wonders , ...........or just not , ....

when ya play on a MAC titanium , portable , it rocks , ......

have a nice day

Destroyer · June 1, 2002, 18:22

How large is Marla's Map?

Destroyer · June 1, 2002, 18:29

Ah - it is 204x256.

MInes 25% bigger, although I believe its the number of AI units that determines the majority of the length of time a turn takes.

Not sure if the RAM type would make huge difference in time.

Im talking about 5 minute turns in the 1900s onwards.