Expansion 2 news?

[proviisori]

Some guys know a little bit more I guess

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by proviisori
Some guys know a little bit more I guess

Yes, this is true. We at Apolyton have always been blessed with a plethora of in-the-know folks. Some of our forum mods have been working on Civ4 since the beginning. however, I would not expect such people to be able to communicate such precious knowledge to the rest of the community until after certain announcements have been made.

[Cartimandua]

Originally posted by Alexander01
You know, I think the role of the barbarians could be expanded in an expansion.

I'd like to pay off Attila the Hun so he won't sack my cities. I want to bribe the Goths to attack my neighbors. I'd like cohesive, distinctive barbarian tribes, not just generic black-flagged baddies.

I would love anything that uped the strategic capabilities of the game. So often the game is the same fighting techniques, but to pay the barbs to "undercover" attack your so-called "friends" (you know, the ones you have good realtions with but are planning on attacking anyway?) so that they didn't know you were the one behind it? Totally cool.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Cartimandua


I would love anything that uped the strategic capabilities of the game. So often the game is the same fighting techniques, but to pay the barbs to "undercover" attack your so-called "friends" (you know, the ones you have good realtions with but are planning on attacking anyway?) so that they didn't know you were the one behind it? Totally cool.

How about covertly supplying the barbarians with weapons, to attack your for-the-moment "friends" with?

Diplomacy seems like the most popular area for improvements.

Imagine being able to force disarmament treaties on defeated foes. Or even agreeing to them via the UN (think START or the Washington Naval Treaty). Lots of potential for fun machinations.

[Jaybe]

Lots of potential for fun machinations, but if the AI were to use them without your (ie, a player) knowing about it, you would scream your head off, calling it a bug.

[Solver]

Well, if you beat the AI, it's poor AI. If the AI beats you, it's a bug in the game or bias in the random number generator .

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Lots of potential for fun machinations, but if the AI were to use them without your (ie, a player) knowing about it, you would scream your head off, calling it a bug.

I suspect that relatively few people would react the way you would.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I suspect that relatively few people would react the way you would.

I suspect you are right! Because I (charitable person that I am ) would consider it a "feature", not a "bug". Even if it was an unintended feature.

I have done that many times in the past, with both Civ4 & Civ3. Sometimes they end up being features that are changed in a revision, sometimes the complainer was getting upset over a "legit" feature.

[Targonis]

Originally posted by Jaybe

I suspect you are right! Because I (charitable person that I am ) would consider it a "feature", not a "bug". Even if it was an unintended feature.

I have done that many times in the past, with both Civ4 & Civ3. Sometimes they end up being features that are changed in a revision, sometimes the complainer was getting upset over a "legit" feature.

The key is to make sure that features are available to players as well as AI. That's what bothers some people, when the AI has certain options that are not available to the players. That's a part of the reason why "features" like AI units NOT being capped at 10XP for killing barbarians is a bit annoying. Why should the AI get the extra training from barbarians when players can't?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Targonis
That's a part of the reason why "features" like AI units NOT being capped at 10XP for killing barbarians is a bit annoying. Why should the AI get the extra training from barbarians when players can't?

Really? This is news to me. A bit ridiculous actually, considering the huge bonuses they get against the barbs in the first place. No wonder I've been seeing these units with all those promotions! I've tried to eliminate them in my game, due partly to Blake's improvements, but I guess that's one I can't touch. Unless of course I remove my own cap.

[Solver]

Uh...

int CvUnit::maxXPValue() const
{
	int iMaxValue;

	iMaxValue = MAX_INT;

	if (isAnimal())
	{
		iMaxValue = min(iMaxValue, GC.getDefineINT("ANIMAL_MAX_XP_VALUE"));
	}

	if (isBarbarian())
	{
		iMaxValue = min(iMaxValue, GC.getDefineINT("BARBARIAN_MAX_XP_VALUE"));
	}

	return iMaxValue;
}

Warlords 2.08 code. Most definitely does not take into account whether it's AI or human...

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Targonis
The key is to make sure that features are available to players as well as AI. That's what bothers some people, when the AI has certain options that are not available to the players. That's a part of the reason why "features" like AI units NOT being capped at 10XP for killing barbarians is a bit annoying. Why should the AI get the extra training from barbarians when players can't?

Actually Targonis, the key is for PLAYERS not to ASSUME the AI cheats without clinical proof. It is all too easy for people to make paranoid assumptions. Perhaps they have been jaded by other games that had certified "cheats" in them (not that players in Civ4 don't have enough cheats themselves).

Would you rather be "right" or "happy"? What if your "right" is WRONG?
See, you could have been happy and mystified just by not leaping to self-righteous indignation (though it's just in some peoples' nature to be that way).

[DrSpike]

Yes, you only have to look at all the threads bemoaning the AI cheating in the combat resolution, even though it has been proven over and over that there is no AI combat bonus versus players.