Strategic diversity in Civ 4 - is it possible?

[Optimizer]

Civ 1, 2 and 3 sometimes felt like they were just about playing efficiently, and following some kind of optimal strategy. Do this, this, this and this, or you lose!

Is it possible to create a Civ game where there is no perfect strategy? Where every move is a gamble?

I have one idea about having rock-paper-scissors relations between government types. One can imagine a game where fascist regimes mostly beat capitalist-democratic states using military might, the democrats mostly beat communists through economic productivity, and communists mostly beat fascists by means of guerrilla warfare and worker uprisings. Would this ensure that no government type is the perfect one?

Another possible way is making political influence less dependent on size. For instance, you could choose between being an omnipotent leader of a small country where the military, business and spiritual leaders are completely loyal, or a leader of a global empire, who is forced to compromise between the internal political forces.

What do you think? Can we get a Civ 4 where there is no kind of "killer strategy"?

[Spiffor]

I'm not sure there is really a "killer strategy" in Civ. Ever since Civ1, the franchise allows for warmongering and peaceful paths to victory, and there is a serious strategic choice in whether you go for conquest or for peace. Actually, the most intense constroversies in the Demogames are about this very issue, because there is not One Superior Way.

Now, I'd like more diversity too (war/peace is hardly the only strategic choice a Civ could take), bnut there's already that

SMAC was better than Civ in this regard, as people were confronted to plenty of choices wrt governments. I'd really like to see the many different dimensions of choice back in Civ4.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, the civ strategy is a bit too "formulatic" (yes, I made up that word and I have copyrighted it )

I have to admit to a distaste for learning every bit of minutia regarding a unit, government, game concept, etc in order to get the most "bang for the buck".

The attempt to introduce a bit more "randomness" into the game via the RNG and the scarcity of resources just really seems artificial. What we need a seamless balance between out of control, random event and careful planning and strategy yielding dependable results.

I for one have no idea how this would be done. However, I'll know it when I see it.

[LDiCesare]

At least in SP you could use, in Civ2, very different strategies to win. For instance you could do OneCityChallenge, which is, admittedly, quite formulaic, or InfiniteCitySleaze, or many things in between.
There will always be an optimal strategy in my opinion, like "pick the government which is most apt at beating the crap our of your neighbour". Whether the government is always the same depends on your target and its behaviour. In Civ2, you could choose Democarcy for its resistance to bribes and productivity or Fundamentalism for its happiness, or Communism for its productivity and spies efficiency. (I am talking Civ2 because in Civ3, I must confess I never saw as many strategic choices as in civ or civ2).

[Trifna]

Galactic Civilizations seems to do that in a better way than generally seen, and GalCiv2 promises to be even better on such an aspect.

A PDF done by fans to show how to play well showed this pretty nicely... how to use diplomacy, economy, etc etc

[Max Sinister]

@Optimizer: Great... so I can change my government to whatever I can use best for clobbering my neighbors :-) Although, if the AI was good enough, they could do the same way...

[Sirotnikov]

Another possible way is making political influence less dependent on size. For instance, you could choose between being an omnipotent leader of a small country where the military, business and spiritual leaders are completely loyal, or a leader of a global empire, who is forced to compromise between the internal political forces.

I think it is already somehow done using corruption and stuff.

I agree there have to be some more random factors, but not too much - the game needs to remain fun!

This gives me another idea: The diplomatic options for a civ players should be dramatically increased, and such factors as money, scientific advancement, culture, religion and "respect" should be more counted against when talking to other countries.

There are other things to consider beyond a country's army size when they try to close a deal with you or petition something in the UN.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ever since Civ1, the franchise allows for warmongering and peaceful paths to victory, and there is a serious strategic choice in whether you go for conquest or for peace.

A choice in civ1? Archers, Legions and capapults were such superior weapons that only a world conquest startegy made sence after you got these.

------------------------------------

Ther have been numerous surveys that said that sliders should be used instead of civ3's government model, that in itself should introduce diversityl.

Ctp has a special unit that can be built with different forms of goverment, I think each kind should have several. Theocracy should have the cleric, crusader, and fanatic, which goes away when you switch. Over time these units can't hold up to the new ones, but you may not want to switch at your earilest opportunity. I also agree with the rock, scissors, paper concept. Also, some governements should be able to build improvements faster, others can build military faster.

[Nikolai]

In Civ1, I always did the scientific victory path. That a strategy is better does not exclude the others you know...

[Sandman]

I have one idea about having rock-paper-scissors relations between government types. One can imagine a game where fascist regimes mostly beat capitalist-democratic states using military might, the democrats mostly beat communists through economic productivity, and communists mostly beat fascists by means of guerrilla warfare and worker uprisings. Would this ensure that no government type is the perfect one?

I dunno. I don't really think it's a good idea to have explicit rock-paper-scissors arrangements in strategy games. It should be more contextual, i.e. a fascist civ can win a quick war against a democracy, but may suffer if the war drags on too long.

[Panzeh]

I don't like rock-paper-scissors arrangements because they often preclude tactics..

[Max Sinister]

I'm okay with them as long as they make sense: In medieval times, pikemen were able to defeat knights (as the Swiss did), but could be defeated by archers (not longbowmen!), who are no match for knights, again.

[realpolitic]

As an example of rock-paper-scissors, something I heard on the history channel was interesteresting. Apaches used archers as a semistelth unit, because they were quiet, they claimed they could wipe out most of the troops in a fight by just using them.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by realpolitic
A choice in civ1? Archers, Legions and capapults were such superior weapons that only a world conquest startegy made sence after you got these.

There were no Archers in Civ 1 though. Legions (3/1/1) and catapults (6/1/1) weren't very convincing compared to chariots (4/1/2), either. Warmongering made sense nonetheless, of course.

[LDiCesare]

Ahhh, Civ1's hordes of Zulu chariots!