Beyond the Sword Review by Solver

[player1]

And why do you think so?
Maybe, for example, some extra hammers from some corporation is useful, but too much hammers is not if it hampers science progress.
Why should there not be the middile ground?

[Blake]

dp

[Blake]

Originally posted by couerdelion


I've got no idea what one of those things is but I'm starting to thing that the whole logical argument goes back to where I was before, namely

1) Extra resources for the corps cost extra gold
2) Each extra resource also adds a corp-related benefit

Both of these values are marginal and cost the same for each resource you have (whether 1 or 100)

Therefore, if you don't like the trade-off of benefit to cost for the 100th resource, you don't like it for the 1st.

To a CERTAIN extent. Particularly for gold and science.

However food is severely limited in how much you can effectively utilize, take for example an archi map where you have many cities with large city radius and no food sinks other than specialists, you can't really effectively utilize a lot of food, in contrast the ultimate in food utilization is the 1-4-0 tile, or 1-2-7 tile - if you have many 1f tiles (like on dry/hilly maps) then extra food - to work those 1f tiles, is very nice.
Likewise health and happy caps limit your ability to utilize food.
This means you might really like 2f because it helps out a lot of cities, 5f might start being overkill, 10f is probably going to suffer from serious underutilization.

With culture, having some to quickly pop borders in a war is nice. You probably don't want a lot unless going for CV.

With hammers, getting some extra hammers to bootstrap the development of hammer-poor cities can be useful.

There definitely is scope for diminishing returns on additional instances of a resource.

And then we have corps which grant resources.

In this case you may want precisely 1, JUST to grant the resource. You might also not want to spread the corp to more than a few cities, and just use those cities as specialized unit pumps and/or send units to those cities for upgrades (a borderline exploit, like training airships and upgrading them to Stealth Fighters). That's the ultimate in low investment corporations.

[=DrJambo=]

Blake, why does the AI just spam corps like there's no tomorrow, if there is supposed to be an educated choice as to where one should be putting them? Not only that, but the AI will freely spam corps when they don't own the HQ. Won't that just obliterate their late game economy?

If the AI's so disregarding of the financial consequences of corps, particularly ones they don't have the HQ for, this leads me to believe that corps are meant to be spread like religion, and the the only limitation is the 'spread' cost. However, this clearly isn't the case.

[couerdelion]

I can definitely see marginal values of extra output in the case of food since this is one of the most important contributors to cities reaching their "limits".

Likewise culture, with the exception of border cities (or the three cities needed for a culture victory), culture only really has value up to the first city expansion. And that feat is easy by the time you've reached the industrial age.

I think my question is related more to those corps that boost either science or hammers. In response to player1's comment, if every corporation resource converts the same amount of gold into hammers (to use Mining Inc as an example), then all of them are hitting science equally.

[player1]

Of course, but the question is how much you do want to hit them.

Do you need X hammers for Y gold, or maybe just X-5 hammers will be enough to save more gold?

[Shrapnel12]

I just bought BTS yesterday and played for a few hours last night, so I thought I'd share my first impressions on a couple things. I don't remember if this was in Solver's review, but here goes:

1. I didn't like the opening movie as much as Warlords. It wasn't bad, just not to my tastes.

2. I'm kinda sure nobody has mentioned this, but in addition to the enhancements BTS already brings, its interface is improved as well. For example, in the diplomacy screen, it now tells you what each civ wants, will trade, and won't trade. Check all your old screens as there is a lot of new info.

3. I was very disappointed when in an attempt to claim a resource outside my fat cross, I built a fort on it and nothing happened. I thought forts were able to give access to resources now. What happened? Was this scrapped at the very end? Did I do something wrong? I thought you didn't need to connect with a road? Or was this just an evil rumor?

4. I'm playing Khmer and I love the civ specific graphics for units.

5. Wow there's a lot of wonders to build. At one time I had more wonder choices then building choices.

6. My last observation is I almost tempted to say this goes beyond Civ 4.5 and almost seems like a Civ 5 with all the new graphics, civs, and interface changes. I'd call it Civ 4.75.

[Robert]

I thought you didn't need to connect with a road? Or was this just an evil rumor?

1. was the resource within your cultural network?
2. yes, it needs a road.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by player1
Of course, but the question is how much you do want to hit them.

Do you need X hammers for Y gold, or maybe just X-5 hammers will be enough to save more gold?

I don’t think that I really agree with this. The margin utility of hammers and gold might change a little but within broad bands (eg positive gold at 0% science, something left to research, not yet on a direct victory path) they are pretty constant. If I am willing to pay 20 gold for an extra 15 hammers, I should also be willing to pay 24 gold for 18 hammers or 400 gold for 300 hammers.

The circular nature of the civ world means that those hammers will ultimately be converted back into core output (science, gold and hammers). This, in turn will be worth more than the 300 hammers unless there is nothing for me to build which is worth building (an unusual situation). As long as I can turn my 300 hammers into more than 400 gold (or equivalent), then the more hammers I can buy at this 4g=3h rate, the faster I can turn those hammers into gold. If I cannot turn my hammers into gold at this rate then I won’t even want to buy the first lot of hammers.

There is perhaps a case that might be made for the “selective” spread of production to those cities that really need it. This could be rationalised by saying that the hammer rate varies from one city to the next. In a city with low production, you might feel that bonus hammers are worth a lot more than in a high production city. Whilst I can see why this argument could have some appeal, I would suggest that there is one other way of paying gold for hammers: Universal Suffrage. More importantly, USuff works better for these types of cities because it gives exactly the number of hammers needed. What’s more, if your corporation hammers are costing more than USuff hammers, you might be paying too much for them.

[Swiss Pauli]

Originally posted by CyberShy

I meant that after a nr of resources you're going to have to pay a netto prize for it.

Originally posted by couerdelion

I've got no idea what one of those things is

netto prize = net price

[Shrapnel12]

If network = borders, then yes it was. It didn't have a road though. After building the fort, I hovered my mouse over it and it said "Requires Plantation" in the info screen. Would have been helpful if it had just said "Requires Road". Anyway, I'll hook up a road and see if it works.

[WangKon]

Solver,

Hello, there. I am a first time poster but the proverbial long time lurker.

Now to your review:

Let me preface by saying that I have found your prior Civ IV reviews wonderfully comprehensive and nuanced. Bar none, they were the the finest in-depth game reviews I've read anywhere--and I am an avid gamer and tend to read a lot of previews/reviews.

But in some sense this particular one is troubling, though it is not without the assets that burnished your prior efforts. In the first place, I do think you are under-rating and ignoring serious, possibly game-breaking, issues with this expansion, e.g. the espionage problems in longer-game settings that many are up in arms about. And I don't think trying to dismiss this issue by simply saying something on the order of "oh, the Marathon setting is just for fringe players and it's unbalanced other ways too" is really the answer for a variety of reasons.

Relatedly, I do think there is something fundamentally problematic in that you are "reviewing" a product that you yourself, by your own admission, had such a heavy hand in developing. What John Locke said in a different field of endeavor applies here too: He who made something should not judge it too for the public. There is a clear conflict of interest, and, in some eyes, this arrangement will invalidate everything positive you say about the product. In fact, it is difficult to disassociate your stake (though perhaps not monetary) in the product with your obstinate failure to recognize the product's defect.

I don't know what is the way out of this dilemma. It appears, from the description of your contribution to this expansion, that having you in the development scheme helped the expansion. Most your readers also will not likely want you to stop reviewing Firaxis products.

But perhaps you ought to try to be extra objective--even more so than you would otherwise be?

[Wiglaf]

It is true, a lot of big problems (eg final frontier scenario AI being useless, espionage on marathon and even epic, AIs spamming corporations in their own cities, etc) went unmentioned in this review. I was a little insulted when Solver said "I did mention them" when in fact these issues were given 2 or 3 vague throwaway words at most.

It's worthwhile to read it because Solver knows more about the game than, say, gamespot. At the same time, gamespot has a policy where game reviewers must be seeing the product for the first time at review. eg, they cannot have interviewed developers, previewed the game, or anything else, to ensure objectivity. So I'd probably in the end trust gamespot more than solver here, who apparently spent months full time working on BTS. he knows Jon, the guy who designed the final frontier scenario, personally. He knows blake, who designed the AI. more to the point, he knows a lot of people at firaxis and was hired by them to do work on civ.

also, solver, it should be made more clear in the review how exactly you "contributed" to BTS and for how long. saying you contributed could mean you tested one feature, helped design the box, or work in advertising. Means nothing.

still...appreciate all the work you did to make BTS a quality product, along with Civ4.

[player1]

Lets put it this way.
Did any other review noticed those things?

Solver review told more about the game then all other reviews combined.

And you can't blame reviewer, even if beta tester, if he didn't played 150 games with all combinations of setting, rules, speeds, various scenarios or not, to notice any possible issue. "Shame on him"

That's not physically possible, plus if you knew anything about beta testing, it's that rules and mechanics change all the time, so even if he played 150 games, it would be irrelevant, since it would not be 150 games of finished product.

[WangKon]

Wiglaf,

I agree. There is a lot of condescension in Solver's replies to some of his critics here--which I feel is unwarranted. One almost wonders, given the sheer arrogance and in-house mentality he displays here, whether he has transmogrified himself from a dedicated fan trying to represent the gaming community to an insider, to "one of them."