I think I´ve developed Civ4 ADD...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Son of David
Or give yourself little challenges. As the world's superpower, you ought to be able to extend your might even to the remotest reaches of the globe. Wage incessant war; be precise and ruthless; prune and raze big enemy cities; and if you get beaten or worn down and outdone by, you obviously weren't as strong as you thought you were.

This is good advice. Heed it.

[Amarsir]

Hmm, well you lost me on the new computer thing, but other than that I was nodding. In fact, I'd been thinking about starting an always/usually/rarely/never/(banana) poll to ask if people finish their games. I don't anymore.

Speaking very generally, one of the challenges in game design is avoiding the "drawing dead" situation. It's more important in multiplayer where the loser is going through the motions knowing he can't win. But it's also very anti-climactic for the winner, and that's as true in solo play as it is in multi.

Specifically, here's what keeps happening. At some point mid-game I control enough property that I'm just out-producing everyone else. I can build an army from scratch and gather them where I like in only a few turns. There's so much research that if I'm not ahead yet technologically I soon will be. Generally about 40-45% of the land is sufficient for this.

At this point, I can choose any win I want. Space race is pretty much guaranteed, though still a ways off. I could wipe everyone out, although at some point I'll probably pass the 60-75% land requirement (depending on # of opponents left) and win that way. Or I could pick 3 cities and switch to culture method assuming assuming I've had at least some eye toward that. Only the UN is out (probably) and even then I have enough votes to stop anyone else. I can stop anyone from doing anything and win by time unless I completely close my eyes.

"Yeah, yeah, you won, we get it. What's your point?"

Namely this: I "won", but whatever method I pick I won't have officially won for another 200 turns or so. 200 turns of clicking, waiting, and very little strategy. That's not fun. So I don't finish the game. If I raise the difficulty, either I get crushed in the early game or the dominance point gets pushed back and the same thing happens. Theoretically I suppose there might be a level (combined with other variables) at which I survive but am just catching up when the opponents are nearing victory. But it's awfully precise and there's always that outmatched early part where survival is more luck than strategy.

Now I know AI limits and yadda yadda yadda, but I really think the problem is that as I'm growing, my opponents are staying roughly equal to each other. If, when I hit 40% of area, another player hit 40% (with the other 20% being arranged however), that'd be a serious opponent. But that almost never happens, (perhaps because I'm taking cities while he's pillaging farms).

So, I don't finish my games. I'd like to, but there's just no game left in them.

[alva]

If you're that far ahead or that certain, that early in the game, you most cretainly need to play at a higher level.

...or, just start a new game. You don't have to finish them to have victory declared, unless you really feel the urge to show off you hall of fame.

[Blake]

THe good news is, once the SDK has been out for a while people can enhance the AI cheats code to alter the way bonuses work.

It is fair to give them archery and stuff at the start since axemen rushes destroy warriors so badly, but the lionshare of the bonuses should start kicking in later in the game. THere could even be adaptive mode where the AI get bonuses proportional to the amount of lead you have on them. Which could still result in "just going through the motions" gameplay, but I think it'd be better than every game being a really steep uphill climb followed by coasting to victory.

[fed1943]

May be a little off topic,but will that SDK necessary to play the changed games or just to change them?And perhaps will be a thing like the custom begining or noway?
(I thought will be nice to try something like agressive+agressive=combat II for melee and gunpower and so on).
Best regards,

[alva]

I assume they will be played as a mod.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by fed1943
May be a little off topic,but will that SDK necessary to play the changed games or just to change them?And perhaps will be a thing like the custom begining or noway?
(I thought will be nice to try something like agressive+agressive=combat II for melee and gunpower and so on).
Best regards,

No, the SDK is just a programming tool. It´s not necessary to have to be able to play. Just as alva says it will be in the form of a mod.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Amarsir
Hmm, well you lost me on the new computer thing, but other than that I was nodding. In fact, I'd been thinking about starting an always/usually/rarely/never/(banana) poll to ask if people finish their games. I don't anymore.

Speaking very generally, one of the challenges in game design is avoiding the "drawing dead" situation. It's more important in multiplayer where the loser is going through the motions knowing he can't win. But it's also very anti-climactic for the winner, and that's as true in solo play as it is in multi.

Specifically, here's what keeps happening. At some point mid-game I control enough property that I'm just out-producing everyone else. I can build an army from scratch and gather them where I like in only a few turns. There's so much research that if I'm not ahead yet technologically I soon will be. Generally about 40-45% of the land is sufficient for this.

At this point, I can choose any win I want. Space race is pretty much guaranteed, though still a ways off. I could wipe everyone out, although at some point I'll probably pass the 60-75% land requirement (depending on # of opponents left) and win that way. Or I could pick 3 cities and switch to culture method assuming assuming I've had at least some eye toward that. Only the UN is out (probably) and even then I have enough votes to stop anyone else. I can stop anyone from doing anything and win by time unless I completely close my eyes.

"Yeah, yeah, you won, we get it. What's your point?"

Namely this: I "won", but whatever method I pick I won't have officially won for another 200 turns or so. 200 turns of clicking, waiting, and very little strategy. That's not fun. So I don't finish the game. If I raise the difficulty, either I get crushed in the early game or the dominance point gets pushed back and the same thing happens. Theoretically I suppose there might be a level (combined with other variables) at which I survive but am just catching up when the opponents are nearing victory. But it's awfully precise and there's always that outmatched early part where survival is more luck than strategy.

Now I know AI limits and yadda yadda yadda, but I really think the problem is that as I'm growing, my opponents are staying roughly equal to each other. If, when I hit 40% of area, another player hit 40% (with the other 20% being arranged however), that'd be a serious opponent. But that almost never happens, (perhaps because I'm taking cities while he's pillaging farms).

So, I don't finish my games. I'd like to, but there's just no game left in them.

I don´t have a problem of leading with a huge margin. But as you say, if you´ve got a huge lead in almost every respect in mid-game it´gets rather tedious from there. That´s why I wanted a stop option in the custom settings so I can set the end of the game to after the Renaissance. I mean there´s the "accelerated start" option. So why not a "shortened stop" option?

And as UR said if you play the game for relaxation and not for the challenge (I´m too lazy to change my gameplay) kicking the difficulty up a notch isn´t the answer.

[Blake]

Good point. A few strategy games have threshold victories - once a player is a certain # or % of points ahead of the next best, they win. Of course the victory can only activate after a certain time / # turns into the game, like after 1000AD...
I feel threshold wins are better than timed wins, because with timed it can be like winning by 1 point which isn't convincing, but a threshold game basically keeps going (and being interesting) as long as the competition remains.

So for SDK, maybe we can have highly customizable victory conditions. Like the best setup is something like this:
To win, must satisfy X of N victory conditions.
then pick a bunch of conditions and set the variables...

for example:
Victory Conditions:

• Population exceeds next best by 25%.
• Territory exceeds next best by 25%.
• Culture exceeds next best by 100%.
• Date is at least 1500AD.
• To win, must satisfty 3 of 4 victory conditions.

In this example, the game could be won pre-1500AD by satisfying all of the first 3 victory conditions, or post-1500AD by only satisfying two of them. So it could be very flexible indeed.

[Zoid]

Great

There is no way you can alter the XML files to get that now, is there?

[alva]

Played alot of RISK Blake?

Zoid: why not introduce some house-rules then.
Like settling 10 turns later (yes, press enter 10 times before setlling).

There's many variations that can be played out here.

[Zoid]

it might be worth a shot I guess...

[alva]

I think Aeson did a Civ3 game where he didn't settle until AD (and won).
Not sure what level it was on but knowing him it was probably deity.

[Zoid]

Damn, either way it´s some good playing then!

[Solver]

Bah, the SVC game was the ultimate Civ3 challenge ever anyway .