fix this already

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by ulyanov
I'm reasonably certain the USA is more powerful than Canada, and I am sure the USA knows that, too...

I'm sure the UK government know where they stack up against France and Germany, too...

But if we had the ommunications of 4000 BC, we might not have known that.

[RGBVideo]

Im sooooo sorry your royal highness, here is me thinking this was a forum on the internet to talk about a computer game. When its really your high court room to have lower case discussions. And at the time I was not rude,just emotional, so get over yourself tool.

Stfu noob, rtfm:

Apolyton FAQ section XI:
What can't I post?
Insults, flames, hatred comments, spamming, advertisements are an abuse of your priviledge to post and can result to a penalty.

Restricted subject matter includes anything deemed inappropiate or offensive by a moderator. If uncertain as to whether a particular subject falls under this category, contact the moderator(s) of the forum(s) you wish to discuss this matter in; where no moderator(s) is present in a forum, contact forum administrators.

Those scores are just basic realism

Yes -- every leader has known with 100% accuracy the strength of every other nation in the world by getting to see a four-digited number which always tell the absolute strength of all nations.

There should be an option to turn this off in multiplayer games. A large part of the excitement in multiplayer strategy games is precisely the possibility of surprise during every moment, from any every enemy and friend. Unpredictability is the reason I seek multiplayer instead of single player games.

[Eli]

Yes -- every leader has known with 100% accuracy the strength of every other nation in the world by getting to see a four-digited number which always tell the absolute strength of all nations.

Meh. The first digit is the only one that is of any use, maybe the second too if it's a 9 vs a 1.

Knowing that you have 4325 points while an AI has 4238 is no different than knowing that both of you have approximately the same "power". You cant really deduce anything from the exact score. So yes, it's realistic enough. Countries always knew roughly how they fare compared to their competitors.

[Tattila the Hun]

Something is wrong, when a leader, who is "Friendly" towards me, decides that, in order for our two people to truly work together in mutual respect and appreciation, my nation needs to be violently annexed by his. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

When I hover the mouse over one of his buddies, it says, that "We couldn't betray our closest friends!" Oh yeah? How about me? Am I not your friend? Doublecossing sob... And I trusted you. In another lifetime, you'll pay for this. *starts a new game and crushes Capac*

There should be *some* security... If my closest ally can just forget few thousand years of piece and prosperity, there is no border I can left lightly guarded... And that's expensive.

[Harrier UK]

Originally posted by KingSpartanPete
Basculy guys its a game, we know the US are better than alot of other Civs, but what the point of playing if we know everything all the time? Do you want the game to tell you after 5 moves who will win? NO YOU DONT! so lose the scores as they are a mini giveaway.

If you use them your cheating yourselve i think, and a weaker player to boot.

Your playing a GAME, not a spreadsheet.

Grow up sonny.

The scores are just an indication of each civs standing.

For instance if you met a rival civ in ???BC and visually they seemed fitter and better clothed etc. and appeared to have different weapons, you might think they were stronger than your tribe.

That is what the score system tells you - because we do not have graphics for every unit of every nation that indicate strength, health etc. etc. etc.

[marvinkosh]

While it may seem cliché, the best defence is a strong offence. If someone is stupid enough to declare war on you and you have troops of your own ready to roll on his cities, it's going to be a short war, even if you do have to take back and rebuild territory.

I don't deny that maintaining an effective defence all round is expensive, but by removing the temptation (by statioining some strong troops in your border cities) it becomes more likely that your ally will decide it isn't worth his while, and will look for someone weaker to invade.

[KingSpartanPete]

Thaks to those that havent tried to make me out to be some hater! I was jsut excited and was expressing a point in a louder than tlife way :P

However, i do disagrea with alot of comments about it giving in indication to the success of a tribe?

You think back in AD or 1000 BC ppl know there success and size compared to the others? no way, if they landed on a contintet they formed opiopins on what they found first, they never know what lied ther east, or how big their civilisation went? not untill htey EXPLORED! thats the key here for me.

I can imagine columbus now landing on a continent and the first person he meets saying , "yea well basicly we are about 4276 points for a civ? you?" And just meeting the first tribes is no indication of the other tribes or capitol city etc. England had peasents and kings remmeber.

[Aro]

...But you can imagine Pizarro saying to his tenent: "Pablo, these Inca guys have no horses, no gunpowder and no organized religion (well, they had, but...)! A piece of cake, I tell you! Lets bonk some heads...
It's about the same thing... He could say "Those guys have 560 points, and we have 1750... A piece of cake, I tell you! Lets bonk some heads!

[KingSpartanPete]

but you can see all that?
You can see the units ? see the size of the first town? hell even take it and see the building sit has? This is only true to what would happen in real life?

how would the first persons they meet on the coasxtline know everything about the entire civ anyway?

[Tsar_of_Cows]

Originally posted by KingSpartanPete
Thaks to those that havent tried to make me out to be some hater! I was jsut excited and was expressing a point in a louder than tlife way :P

However, i do disagrea with alot of comments about it giving in indication to the success of a tribe?

You think back in AD or 1000 BC ppl know there success and size compared to the others? no way, if they landed on a contintet they formed opiopins on what they found first, they never know what lied ther east, or how big their civilisation went? not untill htey EXPLORED! thats the key here for me.

I can imagine columbus now landing on a continent and the first person he meets saying , "yea well basicly we are about 4276 points for a civ? you?" And just meeting the first tribes is no indication of the other tribes or capitol city etc. England had peasents and kings remmeber.

I think Columbus, who, BTW was worknig for the Spanish Queen, not the British Empire, would have realised pretty quickly that the natives were very far behind, when he saw them running around semi-naked with spears.

I agree with the above posters that all nations and groups of people would be "sizeing one another up" and the scores are somewhat of an indication of this.

They would have all been sussing out who they could take on and who the couldn't, and they've been doing so throughout history, they would do this by observeing what kind of technology the other nations had, how widespread they were and how organised their society was.

I do agree however, that you would need to know the extent of another's Empire before really knowing how strong they were, and perhaps the core should be dynamic in that way - it changes according to how much of the enemies' empire you can see, and you only get a good indication by trading maps.

I also think that perhaps approximate scores would be a good idea: for example, you know that Elizebeth is a lot stronger than you, but you don't know by how much, so perhaps her score is displayed as say... 4000 - 4500, or maybe a plus or minus value from your score would be more sense than this kind of universal yardstick that all civs are measured against - so instead it would say +1000 to +1500 etc.

[KingSpartanPete]

perhas some more general indication may be ok, but all i can answer this with is my experience. AS i turn scores off in game, sooo many times i come accross a civ, and an smll town, with basic units and think wicked I will conquer these! only to then declare war, and later find they were actaully massive! with better units in bigger towns further inland. Much like it would be in real life. Its too easy to imagine everyone know everyhing given todays small world, but back in these days the world was flat! noone know anything until discovered.

That for me is the fun of the game.

[KingSpartanPete]

Also to re address my original point, which was I tunr this off, but when the game re loads its back on?? This is poor, and its this that needs fixing.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by marvinkosh
While it may seem cliché, the best defence is a strong offence. If someone is stupid enough to declare war on you and you have troops of your own ready to roll on his cities, it's going to be a short war, even if you do have to take back and rebuild territory.

I don't deny that maintaining an effective defence all round is expensive, but by removing the temptation (by statioining some strong troops in your border cities) it becomes more likely that your ally will decide it isn't worth his while, and will look for someone weaker to invade.

My point is, that he is my closest ally... I should not need to fear him.

[RGBVideo]

Oh geez, looks like we hit a nerve here. Suddenly the thread is filled with spinmeißters defending the scoreboards with tooth and nails, bending reality into their own choosing. What's wrong with an option which allows to turn this feature off in multiplayer?

I think Columbus, who, BTW was worknig for the Spanish Queen, not the British Empire, would have realised pretty quickly that the natives were very far behind, when he saw them running around semi-naked with spears.

Yes, because the difference was clear, Spanish empire was over 100 times more powerful. That has nothing to do with The point is that if you know that you shouldn't know the exact strengths: eg., you can't launch a shock invasion early in the game while keeping zero defence and scare the crap out of your enemy with this diversion anymore if you're as powerful (or less powerful) than he is, like I could in Civ2. In your example the natives were barbarians btw.

The scores are just an indication of each civs standing.

Well why don't the advisors simply say that "this civ is way behind us in x and x" or "this civ is way ahead of us in x and x"?

Knowing that you have 4325 points while an AI has 4238 is no different than knowing that both of you have approximately the same "power". You cant really deduce anything from the exact score. So yes, it's realistic enough. Countries always knew roughly how they fare compared to their competitors.

That's the most awesome piece of logic ever. So basically you're saying that :
(1) You yourself can't really deduct anything from the exact score ranking
(2) Countries always knew roughly how powerful other countries were, altough they couldn't create any exact score ranking
(3) Ergo, this is realism

Trolling or just stupid? Think about that chain of logic for a while.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KingSpartanPete
Im sooooo sorry your royal highness, here is me thinking this was a forum on the internet to talk about a computer game. When its really your high court room to have lower case discussions. And at the time I was not rude,just emotional, so get over yourself tool.

Now i am been rude by the way, just so we are clear.

No, now you're being retarded. No one gives a **** about you or your whining.