Rising from the Ashes

[lomendil]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
the following thread was inspirational for Civ 3-ers learning to play catch-up.

So Very Cold

This guy is incredible. Even though you specifically linked to this thread, I was still sure Aeson would lose! Btw, anyone knows why I can't see the images there?

I must be not pushing hard enough when things look bad. But still, I think it's worth designing Civ V (or a mod to Civ IV) so that the outcome is more often uncertain till the very end.

Ideally, I'd like to see all starting civs survive, and remain a credible threat till the end. Other than making diplomacy more exciting, this would also reduce the other problem mentioned in this thread: time-consuming warfare with known outcome.

Revolving faction game sounds like fun, I'll try it.

The "perceived threat" adjustment to diplomacy is exactly the type of thing that I'd want to try out.

And PA are interesting, although it feels somewhat confusing how AI thinks about PA (is it twice better to win solo than in PA with anoter civ?).

Maybe introduce something where you can offer another civ an "unequal" permanent alliance: if a normal victory is like getting 100 points, such unequal alliance victory is like splitting that 100 points according to an agreed ratio.

Say, I can see a real weak civ, and offer them alliance for 10% fraction of the pie (i.e., 10 points). Assuming they estimate my chance to win at 50%, they are agreeing to 50% chance to get 10 points. Which is kinda similar to 5% chance to get 100 points, or 100% chance to get 5 points. So if they have less than 5% chance of winning on their own, and if no one offers a better deal, they would accept my offer.

Lots of balancing will need to be done. E.g., two civs joining in PA may more than double their individual chances of victory, and so alliances may tend to be overused by AI. It's a boring game if everyone agrees to an alliance based on their strength in 3000 BC Some overconfidence in AI's estimates of its own victory chances would help; and maybe some limit on the largest alliance size or something.

[okblacke]

As for being behind, the more experienced and imaginative the player, the more chance they have of digging themselves out of the hole. This has always been true for Civ games, and the following thread was inspirational for Civ 3-ers learning to play catch-up.

So Very Cold

Yeah, that post was inspirational for me and instrumental in bringing me out of Settler/Chieftan play and up to Monarch in Civ. (And I'm sure I could've gone further but micromanagement seemed to be the key in doing so.)

Anyway, I've found myself bored in Civ 4, too, but having Civ 3 to recall, I know it's because I haven't challenged myself to do things differently.

In the case of the OP, I would challenge the notion that he absolutely needs to have more units than Mansa to win. (But then, I wouldn't have much to base that challenge on since I'm a terrible chickenhawk... )

[Footie Mad]

If I find myself in a "dead end situation" I try something unconventional and or very risky. This might not be the best example but I was playing as the mongols on monarch and lost my first own produced settler. Basically destroying my start and losing me many important early turns in development and expansion areas

. So I decided to bite the sour grape and managed to get three cities before running out of space. Then I went for a total military build up using my aggressive trait, managing to overrun my neighbour Egypt who had twice the score of me. After the war and consolidating the captured land I was number two in score, from being dead last.

[knighterrant]

The games that appear to be lost but I manage to pull through are the best ones I've ever had.