I wouldn't want the job of making Civ V, Civ IV is too good

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by wodan11

Disagree. As I said, "Later in the game, it's not such a big deal. It's only early in the game where one player beelines BW or AH and finds they don't have the resource."

Beelining to longbow is not that hard once you find you don't have iron... it's annoying, but it's not hard.

If you're referring to the suggestion (or some variance) of the idea that no units are restricted but are discounted if you have the resource, then I tend to agree, but not totally so.

As an example of where I would disagree: if you rush me with HAs, me being able to make spears at x2 the cost isn't going to save my bacon. It'll prolong the agony, that's all. Heck, it's probably a better tactical decision to simply make archers at normal cost, than to make spears at x2 (or whatever). I can get three archers for the same hammer (70 vs 75), and their effective combat power against HAs is probably better than 1 spear.

Yes, that's what I was referring to; and I think you'll find that although there will of course be cases where you will lose (or it wouldn't be a challenge...), that you have MORE of a chance when you can build spears even at higher cost. But - even more relevant - is the attacking side. You can't attack without swords/axemen, at least until catapults - and even then you can't perform an entire attack without them. You can use a bunch of cats and a few swords, or a bunch of swords and a few cats, but you need some of both...

Liking something doesn't mean they wouldn't like the alternative. And, just because a few miscreants like something doesn't mean it's good for the game. Who's to say how many people might join the MP community if it wasn't so cut-throat?

Anyway, actually, I would suggest that a game option would be the other way around. Whatever the implementation is... we've talked about, what, 3 different things?
-- Basic defensive unit available at game start
-- Defensive bonus within culture border
-- 30 turn treaty at game start

Anyway, whatever it is, I would say that should be the game default. Then, a game option would be to turn this off. MP players who wanted a "rush" game could then do this.

Wodan

For SP, that's generally the case; the AI does NOT rush you early on. It's hardcoded in, I'm fairly sure. You can rush the AI of course, but at higher levels it's impossible due to the AI's high free starting unit level.

As you say, for MP, some would like it and some would not... it's certainly something I'd put in the game, though I'd probably make it not default (as I prefer the most open game to be the default, and anything that limits the game to be an option).

[Krill]

Rushing is completely necassary in CIV. Imagine if your start has only a plains cow for food and you have an opponent with 2 irrigated corn and gold in his cap. You are going to get out expanded and then killed by that player unless you kill them first. This is why rushing is important and a required skill. The fact that most Apolytonites don't bother to get out many early units (how many RAH games have I killed people with a few warriors snoop?)

Rushing (and choking which is basically rushing) is a necessity for game balance. Removing it by enforcing 30 turnas on peace basically lets the people lucky enough to get good starts to win the game.

[Krill]

The thing is, if you get a good start you shouldn't rush, you should be focusing your resources on improving your land and defending yourself (in an FFA. A teamer or duel is different but that's game theory for you)

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Krill
Rushing is completely necassary in CIV. Imagine if your start has only a plains cow for food and you have an opponent with 2 irrigated corn and gold in his cap. You are going to get out expanded and then killed by that player unless you kill them first.

That dosn't mean it's required to rush, though, especally if that player isn't likely to attack you. If you're in a situation where you can remain at peace with your neighbors (say, they're all the same religion as you, and they're not one of those AI's that always attacks you early), peaceful horizontal expansion combined with and followed by focused economic development can give you a big enough base to have a long-term advantage against AI's, even those with a better starting position then you do. Main problem with that stratagy is that then you tend to have a small millitary and become vulnerable, and everything tends to be touch and go for a while, but with careful diplomacy and a bit of luck, it's very winnable.

I've come to the conclusion that it's usually easier to win if you rush one AI early on and take a few cities, but you can win without doing so, definatly at least up to emperor level anyway.

[snoopy369]

Krill is specifically mentioning MP, though, where it's a bit different. He's saying that you either get a 'good' start, and need to develop that start and protect from a rush, or you get a 'bad' (or 'cramped good') start, where you won't win unless you rush someone (assuming all players are of equal ability). This isn't entirely true, but it's not an unreasonable way to play ... and is something a lot of people enjoy.

[Yosho]

Ah, yeah, in multiplayer rushes are much more necessary, since you clearly can't afford to with with a smaller millitary, heh.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Beelining to longbow is not that hard once you find you don't have iron... it's annoying, but it's not hard.

You're still talking much later than I was. I'm talking, as in MP, where if even 20 turns go by you're screwed.

But - even more relevant - is the attacking side. You can't attack without swords/axemen, at least until catapults

Good point.

For SP, that's generally the case; the AI does NOT rush you early on. It's hardcoded in, I'm fairly sure. You can rush the AI of course, but at higher levels it's impossible due to the AI's high free starting unit level.

So, to tie these points together... if you didn't have the resources, so you had to beeline Longbows (as you suggested), you would not be able to mount an effective offense in SP. Since the AI generally out-expands the player (on high levels, certainly), not having the resources would mean your empire is much smaller than the AIs. This would effectively hamstring the game and it would be tough, if not impossible, to recover.

As you say, for MP, some would like it and some would not... it's certainly something I'd put in the game, though I'd probably make it not default (as I prefer the most open game to be the default, and anything that limits the game to be an option).

I'd take the approach where anything that helps the new player is the default.

The last thing good game design wants is any feature where a new player (in SP or MP) gets whomped for something such as bad luck in not getting a resource. "What do you mean I can't make Axes?!? I just spent 30 turns researching the tech, and now my neighbor is invading! This game sucks."

Wodan

[wodan11]

A 30-turn peace treaty is artificial anyway, so should be avoided. Better would be any of the other solutions that have been mentioned.

I'm still unconvinced that rushing should be encouraged by the game in any way. In fact, as I implied above, I think the game should discourage it by allowing much more hefty defensive measures, such as a unit which gets a hefty bonus when defending in your culture borders.

Note that this would not necessarily prevent pillaging or choking, unless the opponent was able to station a defending unit on the resource.

In response to the comments about extremely unfair resource allocation (such as the example of 2 wheat + gold while another player gets nothing except resources which are no benefit at game start), that seems like a crappy mapscript and can be fixed.

Wodan

[Krill]

[q=Wodan]I'm still unconvinced that rushing should be encouraged by the game in any way. In fact, as I implied above, I think the game should discourage it by allowing much more hefty defensive measures, such as a unit which gets a hefty bonus when defending in your culture borders.[/q]

Er...if you want to play always peace then I suggest that is what you ask for.

[wodan11]

How in the world can you confuse my suggestion with always peace?

I'm saying, add a defensive unit available at game start. That unit will soon be obsoleted and outclassed by new units. And, even so, it doesn't say "you can't rush". It just says "you can't rush and find your opponent with only warriors".

Krill... our goals are not mutually incompatible. You want to rush to avoid unbalanced game starts. There are other ways to fix that.

Unless you have ulterior / unstated desires why you want to keep rushing?

Wodan

[Krill]

You have a defensive unit at the start of the game. It's called a warrior. You can even get archery as your second tech if you feel the need. Though I wouldn't be averse to saying that every civ always start with 1 warrior and then either a scout or warrior depending on hunting.

[Krill]

Really, rushing will always be part of any game that has unequal starts. And in civ, unequal starts are always going to be a fact of life. And unequal can have, oh so many meanings. Wjhat ahout a 2 civ continent, but on civ is on the coast and the other dead centre? One civ has 5 happiness resources and the other has none? Zulu versus Lizzie, one of the ultimate rush civ versus a brilliant FFA civ?

[realpolitic]

Civ 4 is a tough act to follow.... but there are some great ideas here.

Soren has resisted the temptation to over complicate, like world in flames.

As for combat, I do prefer the combat system of CTP2, which would also make the game a bit faster.

More civics or more civic choices would add to the possibilities..

5x5x5x5 = 625 combinations
7x7x7x7 = 2401 combinations

Quadruple the combinations by adding 2 choices per civ, or quintuple the combinations by adding 1 civic. That adds lots of strategy without overcomplicating the game. It's such a simple, good idea that I'll mod it myself (If I can, I haven't looked at the files).

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill
You have a defensive unit at the start of the game. It's called a warrior. You can even get archery as your second tech if you feel the need. Though I wouldn't be averse to saying that every civ always start with 1 warrior and then either a scout or warrior depending on hunting.

All that is going to mean squat if you go for BW and find you don't have copper, while your neighbor does the same and does. You know this.

Wodan

[Krill]

Worst case scenario: you get fully choked by axes and then swords (because unless you are retared you can stack just archers in your city and you shouldn't die until catapults) and you tech straight to catapults and stack them in your city. The moment a stack roles up to kill you, you cat it to oblivion and then slaught the damaged SOBs with your archers. Sure, you probably aren't going to win the game, but you make it so horrifically expensive that the person choking you isn't going to win either because the third player in the game expanded without having to choke or rush and so is in a better place than the second player economically.

(TBH, if balanced resources always gave the strat resources 5 tiles from the starting position I'd say that you could slave and chop out a settler and an archer to the defend that city and you could go and plant on a nearby copper). 2 archers in a city don't get awful odds against unpromoted axes axes, and if the rusher is getting a barracks you should definately have time to settler on resource (unless they settler on a marble or stone or copper plains hill)