SIMPLE and EASY Ideas for the Patches

[TheHateMale]

Play larger maps? It only shows the top seven or so. with 10 civs, it still wouldn't tell you that much.

Is there any way to get more of those ranking things? I miss them in the later game. It's probably not as useful once you've met everyone though.

Did someone already say put an outline on all borders? Just noticed that Germany's cultural border is very difficult to see in the jungle.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by TheHateMale
Play larger maps? It only shows the top seven or so. with 10 civs, it still wouldn't tell you that much.

Ehmmm... the number of civs is preset for each map size, so you always know how many civs you play against

[ugignadl]

Originally posted by Adagio
Would you like to play the game, where you see the whole map before the game starts? It's just about the same as with the number of Civs... it spoils the suprise in the game...

Presuming I'm illiterate only makes you sound ignorant. These suggestions are given the current state of the game, there is no disclaimer before each successive idea of the form "Given all the previous changes, I think X should be implemented."

EVEN if the number of civs were unknown, which it isn't (and you did not claim to be using a nonexistant option), it would still be completely different to knowing the whole map at the start. And much more unbalancing.

I guess we could settle it easily, however. We'll play two games. With a random number of enemies. I'll tell you how many enemies are on the map, and you tell me what's in every grid of the map. Are the two advantages the same? Of course not! They aren't even roughly analagous.

[TheHateMale]

Originally posted by Adagio


Ehmmm... the number of civs is preset for each map size, so you always know how many civs you play against

Maybe you could play a large pangaea with a reduced number of civs, raging barbs and have some of the AI taken out by them before you ever meet them. Apparently the Highlands map is good for this.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by ugignadl
Presuming I'm illiterate only makes you sound ignorant. These suggestions are given the current state of the game, there is no disclaimer before each successive idea of the form "Given all the previous changes, I think X should be implemented."

EVEN if the number of civs were unknown, which it isn't (and you did not claim to be using a nonexistant option), it would still be completely different to knowing the whole map at the start. And much more unbalancing.

Ok, if that's how you read this thread, then fine. I just always read these threads as if two (or more) ideas in the same post has something incommon, then you read them as if the first idea is implemented before the other idea is worked on...
This specially goes in cases where in doesn't make any sense to implement idea #2 if idea #1 is not implemented

Originally posted by ugignadl
I guess we could settle it easily, however. We'll play two games. With a random number of enemies. I'll tell you how many enemies are on the map, and you tell me what's in every grid of the map. Are the two advantages the same? Of course not! They aren't even roughly analagous.

I didn't say those two "advantages" was balanced, but that was not the point. I wasn't talking about advantages, but the fun of discovery. It's more fun when playing a game, arive at some continent and wonder how many (if any) other civs are there. Knowing it before you arrive takes the fun out of it, like it takes the fun out of discovering the map, when you know exactly how the map is




But let's stop this threadjack...

[ugignadl]

Originally posted by Adagio
I didn't say those two "advantages" was balanced, but that was not the point. I wasn't talking about advantages, but the fun of discovery. It's more fun when playing a game, arive at some continent and wonder how many (if any) other civs are there. Knowing it before you arrive takes the fun out of it, like it takes the fun out of discovering the map, when you know exactly how the map is

That's more the fault of the map script, if it really is the case. In a continents world, with say 7 civs, the number of civs on some previously unknown landmass (of which you can see but a small portion) should remain unknown.

Is there something inherent to the continents script that implies a relationship between the number of landmasses and the number of civs? Isn't it a random number of continents with a random number of players on each continent?

I guess if you have already found all of the existing civs then you know that there is nobody else. But still no guarantee that any new land you find is unsettled (or by whom).

But let's stop this threadjack...

Agreed...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ugignadl
Not good, for gameplay reasons. Some fog is good fog, because it not only reduces tedium, but also reduces the massive amount of AI movement that would spam up your own turns (and that no human can take account of without having each turn take an age).

You won't see any enemy movement unless you turn that option on.

And what's this silly use of "spam" anyway? Nothing against you personally, it's just I have been seeing the word used very often in these forums, most often improperly.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
And what's this silly use of "spam" anyway? Nothing against you personally, it's just I have been seeing the word used very often in these forums, most often improperly.

Think of how Hormel Foods must feel.

Tom P.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by padillah
Think of how Hormel Foods must feel.

Our use of spam comes from the Monthy Python skit.

BTW even the Merriam-Webster carries the word now, what fun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/spam

At any rate it doesn't mean "build or produce large amounts of," and there seems to be any origin for such a (mis)use.

[Urban Ranger]

Change the number of turns left to build to 1 once a unit or building has been pop rushed or bought.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
At any rate it doesn't mean "build or produce large amounts of," and there seems to be any origin for such a (mis)use.

Have you never heard of "spam" e-mail? I don't know HOW it got that connotation but ever since then it's meant "an over-abundance of stuff I didn't ask for."

Therefore, it is technically impossible for you to "spam" workers or units. If you built them, you want them. "Spam" not only signifies an over-abundance but, I feel, it must be unwanted overabundance.

No one would complain of someone "Spamming money" at them. There's no negitivity if the subject wants the stuff being overproduced. And "spam" carries an implicit negativity.

Tom P.

Oh, and BTW... spam spam spam spam lovely spam, wonderful spam! Lovely spam, wonderful spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAAAAAAAAAAM!

(Right after the dead parrot and the peasent from Holy Grail)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by padillah
Have you never heard of "spam" e-mail? I don't know HOW it got that connotation but ever since then it's meant "an over-abundance of stuff I didn't ask for."

Not quite.

Spam originally referred to commericals posted on USEnet newsgroups, usually posted automatically over a large number of newsgroups. This was started by Sanford et al, but the original Cancelmoose arose to fight them.

Spam was later expanded to cover unsolicited commercial (junk) e-mail as well.

[DrSpike]

UR: expert on spam.

[Rusty Nail]

Regarding Future Tech, the AI continues to put 90% into science when all techs have been researched, where any human player would put 100% on cash generation. This puts the AI at a decided disadvantage. My suggestion:

Either:
(1) Give a really substantial cash reward for achieving a future tech, e.g. 6000 gold, or
(2) Reprogram the AI to switch to 100% cash when only future tech remains.

[DrSpike]

Isn't the game over by then?