CivIV: Beyond the Sword

[Alexander I]

My old Omega Expansion thread had a compilation of lot of good ideas. Here's a linky if you want to check it out:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154748&highlight=omega

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Adagio


The Space Race is too slow, requires much more effort and gives a much lower score than any other victory... not much reason to go for that victory

I never go for a space race victory but I often take it as the next best.

And who the hell cares about score in civ

[PrinceBimz]

I am looking forward to this one! I been wanting to see an expansion focus on the modern eras. The random events are a great idea, hey it happens in the real world, hurricane katrina for example. Not sure if hurricanes will be in but it did mention natural disasters.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Adagio


The Space Race is too slow, requires much more effort and gives a much lower score than any other victory... not much reason to go for that victory

"Requires too much effort" - are you saying a space race victory is too hard? I thought that's what makes the game interesting. I generally go for the space race and I'm only interested in the launch date, not the rather arbitary score the game awards.

RJM

[Adagio]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
"Requires too much effort" - are you saying a space race victory is too hard?

I meant to say "requires too much effort compared to how fun it is". Getting some of the other victories are much more harder, but also more fun. Going for the space race victory was fun in Civ1/2, but not in Civ IV

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
I'm only interested in the launch date, not the rather arbitary score the game awards.

I like to look at the scores to see which civs are best at what victories and to see if I get better. But because of the way scores are counted space race and culture is always at the bottom of the score list

And by looking at the highscore list I have noticed something "funny", I've played Korea twice and both times I won by diplomacy (with less than 10 years apart from the victory date)... and it's not like I win often by diplomacy (only won ~5 times by diplomacy)

[Dis]

I take into account what type of victory when comparing my scores. Just a few days ago I got my highest space race victory with Victoria of England. And it was actually my 4th highest score overall (below 2 domination scores). So I use this to judge how good a game I had.

[weezer]

Hopefully this worth of money it will cost

[MJW]

People are playing at different diffaculty levels. So there results are different. I don't have the energy for a flamewar. Spiffor the gameplay just breaks down on the highest diffaculty levels. It is okay at the low ones. The only bad thing about them is that the rush (attacking with axmen and catapults stlye) is way overpowered (if you are going for score/any anything else that can be objectivly measured). This is not an issue for most players. In fact I still enjoy and play some Civ4. It just makes GOTM-stlye playing and any other comptive play pointless. Most gamers like to be comptive. That's all I have to say.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How are RTS games balanced against the AI at all?

Zero.
But this is not a problem because RTS has a MP system that is playable for most players, unlike TBS. The RTS SP can also rely on flashness.
I should have been more clear.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Spiffor



I just did. And it's pretty much my default path to victory: I have to make an extra effort not to end the game with the space race.

I'm talking about the high diffaculy levels (if you want to win in the best possible way. Not just a good way.)

The Space Race is too slow, requires much more effort and gives a much lower score than any other victory... not much reason to go for that victory. --Adagio

BTW,
Chances of flamewar: 15%

[Thedrin]

If the score for a space race victory (or time victory) were calculated differently so that the remaining time played little or no part in this rather arbitrary method of evaluating a game, would that make it a worth while victory to aim for?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MJW
Most gamers like to be comptive.

I don't know.

Sure, there are some very successful games that are highly competitive, like Starcraft or Counter Strike.

However, there are also the Sims.

[zeace]

I actually find I win via space race in order to save time. I fight early until I have enough space to be competitive, and then I guess I get lazy. I spend the next few centuries tuning my beautiful empire. Modern age rolls around and I have two choices:

1) Build a massive army, and a massive navy to transport that army, and then every turn move my massive army to the next poor city, and then repeat ad nauseum until all 12 remaining enemies are dead.

2) Set my cities building space parts and just click "Next turn" a few dozen times.

I guess if I stayed with the aggressiveness in the middle I'd have fewer enemies to deal with now, but it still seems like a lot of work. It's always takes less time to build something peaceful than to build a unit and then move it every turn for the rest of the game.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know.

Sure, there are some very successful games that are highly competitive, like Starcraft or Counter Strike.

However, there are also the Sims.

I agree.
However, almost all hardcore gamers like to be competitive. And TBS is not liked by most soft core gamers. They just wanna blow off and have some silly fun (the sims) or have the carnal experience of blowing stuff up. And that is why there are so few TBS-- empire building games. They are way too slow for the plain soft core and broken for the hard core (because game makers don't care enough about the hard core to go 100% for it. They have to go 100% for the hard core otherwise someone will find a way to make the game broken). The only TBS that I've ever played that was not broken is Master of Orion.

[weezer]

Does anyone know what new units there will be?