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

[Krill]

First of all, while you may know how to rush in warcraft, that doesn't transfer over into knowing how to rush in CIV. The idea does, but reality tends to put a few kinks in the hosepipe of though. My assessment is from your post about your rush, which I think is dead on, and it seems snoopy has the same assessment

AS t new players getting flung in at the deepend, I don;t think anyone can go into a game and having picked it up play perfectly and have flawless understanding of what to do in every situation. There will always be a learning curve. I don't know everything about civ, I'm still learning and improving. The best thing a games developer can do is to make the game interface intuitive and provide infomation about game mechanics and other rules ie via the civilopedia. Yes, alot of people will never bother to read and learn but there is a saying, "Noobs will be noobs". People who don't want to learn won't, but those who will, will. I don;t think a game such as civ should be simplified down to the lowest common denominator, which is the way it is going á la spies.

Fixing up start locations...the MP mapscripts are ok. Basically everyone should start with a similar amount of food (plains cow and unirrigatable bananas aren't food, they're just a bonus, but for some reason the game thinks they are), and a decent amount of land to grow into, preferable similar for everyone so that teamers function. TBG is pretty much perfect now. Then again, that and Inland sea are the only pure MP mapscripts around I think. Oh and Mirror for duels (that is basically chess but it's 1v1 so justified).

The reason I didn;t comment onthe cheap defensive unit is because I've played enough games onren and medi where everyne starts with an explorer which is frankly the best unit in the game in medi. it's cheap, it gets boni on hills and forests (so can be a great sentry) and the only way to kill it reliably in a city, on flat land is with a CR sword which basicaly rules out a rush as you need a barracks and to hook up iron. In ren they make great defenders for lone knights in enemy land (on hills or forest, as pikes don't get odds). If ancient were to get a cheap defender what would it's purpose be? You could use it again to choke, it'll defend great, and it'll be able to threaten you enemies worker, and it's cheap so it won;t affect your expansion too much. That seems like a no brainer to me. So you balance it...you make it so it dies easily out of cities, but then it can't protect a choke. Make it die to another unit? then it isn;'t a good defender is it? You just get the archer/quechua problem all over again. Make it impossible to attack with, and you make rushes fully impossible, removing a whole load of choice from the game, and as has been said the game better give every start a fair chance to win without being a chessboard.

How all this applies to CiV, I have no idea. I just hope Trip and Alex start showing some real class, because what they have been in charge of so far hasn't impressed me an awful lot. Left impressions, yes...

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill
I'll reply to the majority of your post when I have more time (probably tomorrow night) but your bottom line misses the pivotal point: choices are always good, it's the no brainers that need pruning. And as I've said before rushing isn't a no brainer.

Whoa, I disagree with every single point, so we'll have to talk about each one.
1) Choices aren't always good.
2) A certain amount of no-brainers are unavoidable and required to have a foundation upon which to provide the choices
3) Regardless just because rushing isn't a no brainer doesn't mean it's a good idea (what you did here was invert a logical statement but that does not result in an equivalent truism; in fact, it generally results in a false one)

Originally posted by Krill
First of all, while you may know how to rush in warcraft, that doesn't transfer over into knowing how to rush in CIV. The idea does, but reality tends to put a few kinks in the hosepipe of though. My assessment is from your post about your rush, which I think is dead on, and it seems snoopy has the same assessment

Well whatever your opinion of me, that does not have anything to do of the general idea. I'm not so insecure that I have a burning need to defend my play skills, and it's an aside to the point of what we're talking about. That is, what would make Civ5 a better game. Talking about "reality" of Civ4 (by this you mean specific details / situations) is somewhat of a unstable foundation because the details will all be changed anyway.

AS t new players getting flung in at the deepend, I don;t think anyone can go into a game and having picked it up play perfectly and have flawless understanding of what to do in every situation.

Sure. But what's that got to do with putting the newbie in a situation where even an experienced player would be screwed?

There will always be a learning curve. I don't know everything about civ, I'm still learning and improving. The best thing a games developer can do is to make the game interface intuitive and provide infomation about game mechanics and other rules ie via the civilopedia.

I totally disagree. The best thing a games developer can do is provide an environment conducive to repeat, enjoyable gameplay. The interface and documentation is part of that, but it is certainly not the entirety of it.

Yes, alot of people will never bother to read and learn but there is a saying, "Noobs will be noobs".

Okay so are you saying that strategic tips will be put in the Civopedia (and in the popup Sid's tips) on how to avoid a rush, and what to do if you don't get a critical strategic resource?

People who don't want to learn won't, but those who will, will. I don;t think a game such as civ should be simplified down to the lowest common denominator, which is the way it is going á la spies.

I don't either, so hey, we agree on something.

Fixing up start locations...the MP mapscripts are ok. Basically everyone should start with a similar amount of food (plains cow and unirrigatable bananas aren't food, they're just a bonus, but for some reason the game thinks they are), and a decent amount of land to grow into, preferable similar for everyone so that teamers function. TBG is pretty much perfect now. Then again, that and Inland sea are the only pure MP mapscripts around I think. Oh and Mirror for duels (that is basically chess but it's 1v1 so justified).

So you think TBG and Inland sea are the only valid MP mapscripts? Doesn't that tell us that all other mapscripts are flawed?

It might be valid to purposefully make a singleplayer mapscript flawed simply to give the player a disadvantage vs the AI. But, that's not the case... these mapscripts simply are imbalanced and do not meet your criteria for start locations.

The reason I didn;t comment onthe cheap defensive unit is because I've played enough games onren and medi where everyne starts with an explorer which is frankly the best unit in the game in medi. it's cheap, it gets boni on hills and forests (so can be a great sentry) and the only way to kill it reliably in a city, on flat land is with a CR sword which basicaly rules out a rush as you need a barracks and to hook up iron.

Did you just agree that this suggestion would be a good idea?

In ren they make great defenders for lone knights in enemy land (on hills or forest, as pikes don't get odds). If ancient were to get a cheap defender what would it's purpose be? You could use it again to choke, it'll defend great, and it'll be able to threaten you enemies worker, and it's cheap so it won;t affect your expansion too much.

You missed my suggestion that the bonus only works within your cultural borders.

That seems like a no brainer to me. So you balance it...you make it so it dies easily out of cities, but then it can't protect a choke.

It depends if you wanted to make it able to attack, or not. If not, you would have to preposition it by fortifying it on the resource.

To me, that comes down to playtesting to figure out what's better. The concept seems to have some promise, regardless of the exact implementation.

Make it die to another unit? then it isn;'t a good defender is it? You just get the archer/quechua problem all over again.

Sure it is. It's main purpose would be to prevent being screwed by a rush or choke. Who cares if it is easily killed by a more advanced unit (such as a Swordsman). In fact, that would be good, because it would prevent spamming the unit.

Make it impossible to attack with, and you make rushes fully impossible, removing a whole load of choice from the game

There's no reason you couldn't rush with it. You wouldn't get the bonus because you're outside your culture borders. So, you'd be rushing with a weak, underpowered, but cheap unit.

How all this applies to CiV, I have no idea. I just hope Trip and Alex start showing some real class, because what they have been in charge of so far hasn't impressed me an awful lot. Left impressions, yes...

I agree, though differently than you. I think they did a lot that was spot on, but they also did a good bit that is contradictory. It seems you and I disagree on what parts are what, though.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

So you think TBG and Inland sea are the only valid MP mapscripts? Doesn't that tell us that all other mapscripts are flawed?

It might be valid to purposefully make a singleplayer mapscript flawed simply to give the player a disadvantage vs the AI. But, that's not the case... these mapscripts simply are imbalanced and do not meet your criteria for start locations.

He meant that TBG and IS were explicitly made for MP, while the others weren't. Many others work fine for MP in different ways.

I still think archers are a fine defense against rushes. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can tell that the archer is a defensive unit primarily (though I like using them offensively, that's not the obvious use nor the common one). They have all sorts of defensive bonuses. A newbie will use them for that purpose if they're paying any attention. They also can build them early, and if they're getting rushed out of games, they will (hopefully) start building them earlier.

I don't disagree that it's possible for rushing to be too easy, and it's possible even that this is the case now. I don't think it's the case to a large extent; super early rushes only work if the player forgets to leave an early garrison (warrior rushes), and axe/chariot rushes are counterable if you expect them, even with archers.

The mechanics of rushing is always going to be a balancing act; make it too easy and new players are killed early and quickly by experienced players, make it too hard and a player with a better start will always win. You have to find the balance. I think Civ4 has actually something close to a balance there, although adjusting the resource balance slightly is probably a good idea. As you say, it's likely for a person with no copper in a hardcore game to drop out; this is always a problem, but the earlier it happens the more annoying it is. I don't think making, say, an archer with +100% in cultural borders, or something like that, is in any way a good idea, though. That would badly tip the balance away from rushing, and make it too easy for a player to just build a couple of those and then not have to worry about being rushed, ever.

It's the possibility of being rushed that reigns in a player with a strong start somewhat, and prevents him from just building workers and settlers and massively expanding, then easily destroying the other players. This would harm the game far more than a rush does...

I think you also are making a mistake in assuming newer players and krill-level players will be often playing in a game. The folks doing the hardcore rushes, with 6 axemen in the very early game, are VERY good players, and primarily play others that they know - other very good players. If you're a new player and you happen into one of their games, that's your own fault as far as I'm concerned - they usually don't invite random people anyway into ladder games or the like.

New people on Gamespy will generally play other newer players, or mid-level players; or they'll find a game like Rah's saturday night game, which is a mixture (including Krill and Dominae). Usually, Dominae reigns in his rushing somewhat, I rarely rush anymore unless it's another strong player (like Dominae ), and Krill plays infrequently enough that usually everyone survives at least to swordsmen. We don't exactly forbid rushing, but it's a more relaxed game.

Point is, newer players should be playing these types of games, and learning how to play, before they go into a place where the hardcore rushes will really happen. So i'm not sure setting it up so they don't get rushed, just as a concern for new players, is necessary, or a good idea; and certainly not when it harms the game for non-new or weaker players.

[Krill]

Originally posted by wodan11

Whoa, I disagree with every single point, so we'll have to talk about each one.
1) Choices aren't always good.
2) A certain amount of no-brainers are unavoidable and required to have a foundation upon which to provide the choices
3) Regardless just because rushing isn't a no brainer doesn't mean it's a good idea (what you did here was invert a logical statement but that does not result in an equivalent truism; in fact, it generally results in a false one)

I take it that your third point says that rushing is always a good idea? I'll wait for the response to this before I go any further along this line

Well whatever your opinion of me, that does not have anything to do of the general idea. I'm not so insecure that I have a burning need to defend my play skills, and it's an side to the point of what we're talking about. That is, what would make Civ5 a better game. Talking about "reality" of Civ4 (by this you mean specific details / situations) is somewhat disingenuous because the details will all be changed anyway.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm discussing everything in terms of CIV, it is so far the only basis which we can discuss anything on. I'll discuss things in terms of CiV when I get my hands on it.

Sure. But what's that got to do with putting the newbie in a situation where even an experienced player would be screwed?

As I've demonstrated early in the thread, there are ways to survive the rush or choke and if not florish, at least grow. It takes experience to know how to do this, one has to play the game and learn. Yes, a newbie will probably die, but it is up to them to learn how to survive. Which leads to...

Okay so are you saying that strategic tips will be put in the Civopedia (and in the popup Sid's tips) on how to avoid a rush, and what to do if you don't get a critical strategic resource?

Basic hints, such as "It is often wise to get archery early so rushers will be put off attacking", "Don't risk going without an army in MP; most humans know when you are weak and will attack" should be in the game. Advice on how to survive rushes I give out to players all of the time in MP (and alot of my clan mates do the same as well). It's just that alot of people tell you to **** off and what not when you try to help them, hence the saying.

I totally disagree. The best thing a games developer can do is provide an environment conducive to repeat, enjoyable gameplay. The interfact and documentation is part of that, but it is certainly not the entirety of it.

I meant that easy to understand interface and the documentation is the best thing the devs can do to help new playerslearn the game; I do also agree though that there are other things that they can do which are somewhat useful...

So you think TBG and Inland sea are the only valid mapscripts? Doesn't that tell us that all other mapscripts are flawed?

It might be valid to purposefully make a singleplayer mapscript flawed simply to give the player a disadvantage vs the AI. But, that's not the case... these mapscripts simply are imbalanced and do not meet your criteria for start locations.

I think they are the only valid map scripts for MP, yeah. I've played tilted axis a few times, and it wasn't bad. Random shuffle teamers can be cool (shuffle map, shuffle team, random civs, random era) for a quick game. I forgot that donut is on, but that is just a variation on inland sea tbh. Oh, and Hub (that isn't played much anymore, the starts it gave were frankly crap). I don't disagree with your statement, I just don;t see how they can be made to give good team layouts without basically degenerating into 2 games of 2v2 on different continents, or a 3v4v1 where one player of one team is isolated and 4v1'ed into submission. Because if you make them straight 4v4, then what is the point of that map script? TBG is perfect for the straight battle lines game or a start seperated game.

Did you just agree that this suggestion would be a good idea?

You missed my suggestion that the bonus only works within your cultural borders.

It depends if you wanted to make it able to attack, or not. If not, you would have to preposition it by fortifying it on the resource.

To me, that comes down to playtesting to figure out what's better. The concept seems to have some promise, regardless of the exact implementation.

Sure it is. It's main purpose would be to prevent being screwed by a rush or choke. Who cares if it is easily killed by a more advanced unit (such as a Swordsman). In fact, that would be good, because it would prevent spamming the unit.

There's no reason you couldn't rush with it. You wouldn't get the bonus because you're outside your culture borders.

So you make an ancient era unit that you can't get odds on with other anc era units. Congratualtions, you just broke the rock/paper scissors system...the only way to now wage war is to attack enemy units out in the open outside their cultural borders, stopping them from settling new cities. So you always plant on hills, or rather stick to defensive terrain so you can't die and then plant. No, I think that making a cheap unit that is a good defender, and resourceless is a bad idea, because it destroys early era warfare.

[Krill]

Originally posted by snoopy369

So you think TBG and Inland sea are the only valid MP mapscripts? Doesn't that tell us that all other mapscripts are flawed?

It might be valid to purposefully make a singleplayer mapscript flawed simply to give the player a disadvantage vs the AI. But, that's not the case... these mapscripts simply are imbalanced and do not meet your criteria for start locations.

He meant that TBG and IS were explicitly made for MP, while the others weren't. Many others work fine for MP in different ways.

I still think archers are a fine defense against rushes. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can tell that the archer is a defensive unit primarily (though I like using them offensively, that's not the obvious use nor the common one). They have all sorts of defensive bonuses. A newbie will use them for that purpose if they're paying any attention. They also can build them early, and if they're getting rushed out of games, they will (hopefully) start building them earlier.

I don't disagree that it's possible for rushing to be too easy, and it's possible even that this is the case now. I don't think it's the case to a large extent; super early rushes only work if the player forgets to leave an early garrison (warrior rushes), and axe/chariot rushes are counterable if you expect them, even with archers.

The mechanics of rushing is always going to be a balancing act; make it too easy and new players are killed early and quickly by experienced players, make it too hard and a player with a better start will always win. You have to find the balance. I think Civ4 has actually something close to a balance there, although adjusting the resource balance slightly is probably a good idea. As you say, it's likely for a person with no copper in a hardcore game to drop out; this is always a problem, but the earlier it happens the more annoying it is. I don't think making, say, an archer with +100% in cultural borders, or something like that, is in any way a good idea, though. That would badly tip the balance away from rushing, and make it too easy for a player to just build a couple of those and then not have to worry about being rushed, ever.

It's the possibility of being rushed that reigns in a player with a strong start somewhat, and prevents him from just building workers and settlers and massively expanding, then easily destroying the other players. This would harm the game far more than a rush does...

I think you also are making a mistake in assuming newer players and krill-level players will be often playing in a game. The folks doing the hardcore rushes, with 6 axemen in the very early game, are VERY good players, and primarily play others that they know - other very good players. If you're a new player and you happen into one of their games, that's your own fault as far as I'm concerned - they usually don't invite random people anyway into ladder games or the like.

New people on Gamespy will generally play other newer players, or mid-level players; or they'll find a game like Rah's saturday night game, which is a mixture (including Krill and Dominae). Usually, Dominae reigns in his rushing somewhat, I rarely rush anymore unless it's another strong player (like Dominae ), and Krill plays infrequently enough that usually everyone survives at least to swordsmen. We don't exactly forbid rushing, but it's a more relaxed game.

Point is, newer players should be playing these types of games, and learning how to play, before they go into a place where the hardcore rushes will really happen. So i'm not sure setting it up so they don't get rushed, just as a concern for new players, is necessary, or a good idea; and certainly not when it harms the game for non-new or weaker players.

Post of the year so far Snoopy. And I'd say I only rush if I get a crappy start, but my definition of crappy. I take it you looked at my start from last saturday?

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The mechanics of rushing is always going to be a balancing act; make it too easy and new players are killed early and quickly by experienced players, make it too hard and a player with a better start will always win.

I still disagree that these are the only 2 choices on the menu. You two aren't even considering any other options. This is CiV we're talking about. The sky's the limit.

I don't think making, say, an archer with +100% in cultural borders, or something like that, is in any way a good idea, though. That would badly tip the balance away from rushing, and make it too easy for a player to just build a couple of those and then not have to worry about being rushed, ever.

It's a matter of balance of numbers. +100% is probably too much, for one thing. For another, say the bonus is only good against axes or chariots (plus any UUs that are variants of them).

It's the possibility of being rushed that reigns in a player with a strong start somewhat, and prevents him from just building workers and settlers and massively expanding, then easily destroying the other players. This would harm the game far more than a rush does...

The sheer cost of such is a factor too. Settlers and workers aren't cheap, and detract from city growth. Plus, the player would need to build sufficient defensive units for each city.

So i'm not sure setting it up so they don't get rushed, just as a concern for new players, is necessary, or a good idea; and certainly not when it harms the game for non-new or weaker players.

It's not just noobs. Even experienced players will have trouble handling a rush with archers. Do you seriously think archers can stand up to axes? And, even if they do, their game will be hosed because while they're busy fighting they're not able to build infrstructure or have workers make improvements.

Originally posted by Krill

Originally posted by wodan11
3) Regardless just because rushing isn't a no brainer doesn't mean it's a good idea (what you did here was invert a logical statement but that does not result in an equivalent truism; in fact, it generally results in a false one)

I take it that your third point says that rushing is always a good idea? I'll wait for the response to this before I go any further along this line

It's indeterminate. Given that "rushing isn't a no brainer" does not lead to a conclusion that it either is or is not a good idea.

What you said was that "rushing isn't a no brainer" and based on (paraphrase) "all no brainers need pruning + no non-new brainers need pruning" therefore you concluded "rushing doesn't need pruning". Which is faulty logic.

I'll grant that "rushing isn't a no brainer" but I disagreed with "all no brainers need pruning" as well as with "no non-new brainer need pruning". We can either examine those assumptions, or we could continue to talk about rushing as an individual case.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm discussing everything in terms of CIV, it is so far the only basis which we can discuss anything on. I'll discuss things in terms of CiV when I get my hands on it.

You decline to discuss what would make CiV a better game? What do you think this thread is?

If you're going to insist in approaching design of CiV as taking CIV and making one isolated change at a time; while I approach it as being wide open, with complete designer flexibility to make multiple, integrated and consistent functions which work together; then we are not going to achieve any sort of consensus and we should stop now.

I don't disagree with your statement, I just don;t see how they can be made to give good team layouts without basically degenerating into 2 games of 2v2 on different continents, or a 3v4v1 where one player of one team is isolated and 4v1'ed into submission. Because if you make them straight 4v4, then what is the point of that map script? TBG is perfect for the straight battle lines game or a start seperated game.

Variety, if nothing else, would be the point.

In any event, while the problem of one player of a team being isolated is a problem (which honestly could be solved), it's a small subset and more often it would be other ways. Heck, consider the standard Pangaea map, which avoids this issue altogether.

In any event, the first step in improving a mapscript would be to have more intelligent decisions on the starting spots and resources in them. Not exact equal balance, but fair trade in terms of starting your civ.

So you make an ancient era unit that you can't get odds on with other anc era units. Congratualtions, you just broke the rock/paper scissors system...the only way to now wage war is to attack enemy units out in the open outside their cultural borders, stopping them from settling new cities. So you always plant on hills, or rather stick to defensive terrain so you can't die and then plant. No, I think that making a cheap unit that is a good defender, and resourceless is a bad idea, because it destroys early era warfare.

The very point we're discussing is that the RPS system only functions if all players have access to strategic resources.

This gets back to your discussion about player choice. Lack of strategic resources removes player choice. It makes things a no brainer.

If you don't like the basic defender unit (which has promise and I'm not willing to drop it yet), here's another idea. This also points out my contention that there are all sorts of possibilities and that the design of CIV is far from ideal.

What if Horse/Copper/Iron were visible at game start? The player would at least know what tech he had to "shoot" for (BW, AH, or archery).

Wodan

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill


Post of the year so far Snoopy.

Glad to be of service.

Wodan

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Krill


Post of the year so far Snoopy. And I'd say I only rush if I get a crappy start, but my definition of crappy. I take it you looked at my start from last saturday?

Thanks, I think...

I didn't look at it, but I was aware of the basic area you started in due to scouting.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by wodan11

I still disagree that these are the only 2 choices on the menu. You two aren't even considering any other options. This is CiV we're talking about. The sky's the limit.

It's a single thing, with one scale: easier or harder. How can there be more options? You can have more ways to rush, but it's still ultimately easier or harder to do, and easier or harder to survive.

It's a matter of balance of numbers. +100% is probably too much, for one thing. For another, say the bonus is only good against axes or chariots (plus any UUs that are variants of them).

Indeed, this is obviously correct. I would remind you, though, that we already have a defensive unit that is capable of stopping a rush, the archer. I see no reason to add additional - unbalanced - complexity, which would require more balancing and throw our already complicated balance into disarray.

Archers have a particular strength, defense, and the particular balance of this has been thoroughly tested and debated for years; do you think the City Garrison and City Raider promotions are balanced as they are randomly? No, they were chosen to make attacking a city a particular difficulty.

The sheer cost of such is a factor too. Settlers and workers aren't cheap, and detract from city growth. Plus, the player would need to build sufficient defensive units for each city.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. Settlers and workers always cost, they cost the same for everyone. The point is that someone with a better start can more effectively afford to pay that cost. Defensive units also need to be built - you're talking about making this cheaper.

Ultimately, what's happening is that there are certain costs:

• Cost to build a new city: Settler, worker(s)
• Cost to defend yourself: Defensive units
• Cost to rush an opponent

You are talking about raising the third cost by lowering the second cost. It's a straightforward trade - you make it 30% cheaper to defend, so the player with a strong position can either build 30% more defenses - raising the cost to rush by requiring 30%+ more offense - or can build more cities and thus more easily grow to win.

This is the complex mechanics of game balance; if you change one element, you change several others also. Make a unit that counters chariots+axemen, and you get more frequent sword or horse archer use. Make it harder to take a city, and people will build more cities, meaning a civ with more room will expand more and grow larger, faster.

It's not just noobs. Even experienced players will have trouble handling a rush with archers. Do you seriously think archers can stand up to axes? And, even if they do, their game will be hosed because while they're busy fighting they're not able to build infrstructure or have workers make improvements.

If you're an experienced player, you know how to handle a rush, or do after the first couple of times losing to one. Yes, archers stand up to axes. Archers are cheaper than axes, and fortified in a city are stronger by far. A CR axe is 6, versus a forted CD archer at 6ish (counting the FS), and higher on a hill. Given that you get nearly 3 archers for every 2 axemen, that means that indeed you can defend with archers... and the defense has the advantage, anyhow (always having the strongest available unit attacking). If you've ever tried attacking the AI with axes early on, you should know what i'm talking about. The only units I'd attack archers with, unless I had a predominance of force, are swordsmen or War Chariots.

The player doing the rushing presumably has his/her game 'hosed' by having a lesser start. Having to deal with that is part of the game...

What if Horse/Copper/Iron were visible at game start? The player would at least know what tech he had to "shoot" for (BW, AH, or archery).

There's a reason it's not ... to force you to make the decision of which to research. Otherwise people would just beeline to whichever they had, and then rush even faster; this hiding actually makes rushing harder (as if you have a start where you're worried about being rushed, you can go straight to archery).

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369

It's a single thing, with one scale: easier or harder. How can there be more options? You can have more ways to rush, but it's still ultimately easier or harder to do, and easier or harder to survive.

Define "easy" and "hard"?

less hammers vs more hammers
less food vs more food
less gold vs more gold
opportunity cost in terms of growth
opportunity cost in terms of infrastructure
risk in terms of a 3rd player
risk in terms of chance of success

That's just off the top of my head.

Indeed, this is obviously correct. I would remind you, though, that we already have a defensive unit that is capable of stopping a rush, the archer.

"Stop a rush" isn't a boolean.

Keep your city
Keep working tiles (avoid a choke)
Keep your workers improving new tiles
Keep resource access in your city
Keep from being pillaged

Again, just off the top of my head.

I see no reason to add additional - unbalanced - complexity, which would require more balancing and throw our already complicated balance into disarray.

If you can answer all of the above, then you might be correct. Not saying you aren't, just saying that I have yet to see any answers. And that is even for an experienced player. Once that is established we will still have the question of whether it's a good environment for newbies or whether there is some other fix that could help the newbie situation.

Settlers and workers always cost, they cost the same for everyone. The point is that someone with a better start can more effectively afford to pay that cost.

You're talking about opportunity, not implementation.

First off, everyone does not have the same opportunity. A player who starts with Ag has a better opportunity than one who starts with Mysticism.

Secondly, each player has different food, hammers, and resources. A player with 2 wheat and starting with Ag will have a lower implementation cost to build a settler.

Defensive units also need to be built - you're talking about making this cheaper.

This is opportunity. A player who chooses to perform a rush is not going to be building defensive units. So it is moot that they are cheaper... he is not going down that path.

Ultimately, what's happening is that there are certain costs:

• Cost to build a new city: Settler, worker(s)
• Cost to defend yourself: Defensive units
• Cost to rush an opponent

You are talking about raising the third cost by lowering the second cost. It's a straightforward trade - you make it 30% cheaper to defend, so the player with a strong position can either build 30% more defenses - raising the cost to rush by requiring 30%+ more offense - or can build more cities and thus more easily grow to win.

That assumes that "strong position" affects both the opportunity to build defenses as well as the opportunity to build settlers, which is not necessarily the case.

Even if it is, there are other options than you list.
Cost to build infrastructure
Cost to fake a rush

I'm sure there are more.

This is the complex mechanics of game balance; if you change one element, you change several others also. Make a unit that counters chariots+axemen, and you get more frequent sword or horse archer use.

I've responded to this point before. It's Fine. Swords and HAs allow the player more time to discover he doesn't have Copper (or whatever) and to actively pursue a second choice strategy.

Make it harder to take a city, and people will build more cities, meaning a civ with more room will expand more and grow larger, faster.

How do you reach that conclusion? I can see how you would say a civ with a better starting position would grow larger, faster.

There's a reason it's not ... to force you to make the decision of which to research. Otherwise people would just beeline to whichever they had, and then rush even faster; this hiding actually makes rushing harder (as if you have a start where you're worried about being rushed, you can go straight to archery).

It also makes defending against a rush harder. It's harder to defend using archers than it is using Axes or Chariots. For one thing, archers cannot do anything except protect the city. Look up at the list of things that need defending... the city is only the first step.

Let me try to get to the bottom line. At the heart of the matter, a successful rush = good for me, bad for you. Is it good for the game to knock a player out in the first 50 turns? If the answer is "no" then we can ask Are there other options to making "good for me" able to be defined in more ways? Why does it have to be a "zero sum" game... why can't both players have a positive play experience in the early game?

Wodan

[Krill]

[q=Wodan]

Define "easy" and "hard"?

less hammers vs more hammers
less food vs more food
less gold vs more gold
opportunity cost in terms of growth
opportunity cost in terms of infrastructure
risk in terms of a 3rd player
risk in terms of chance of success

That's just off the top of my head.[/q]

Making a rush easier to survive means making it so that less resources are required to survive than now, and vice versa. That can mean not having to divert from more profitable techs (such as writing or the religion branch) to archery, or not having to spend as many hammers (and food via slaving or not) on military units, so more resources can be spent on improving ones economy. Basically you dodged your own question; none of the ideas on your list are easy or hard, and while they are a way of measuring cost, they need to focus on one important aspect: die in 5 turns: lost gold through the game about 500,000 gold, for example

[q=Wodan][q=snoopy]Indeed, this is obviously correct. I would remind you, though, that we already have a defensive unit that is capable of stopping a rush, the archer.[/q]

"Stop a rush" isn't a boolean.

Keep your city
Keep working tiles (avoid a choke)
Keep your workers improving new tiles
Keep resource access in your city
Keep from being pillaged

Again, just off the top of my head.[/q]

If people rush me with units and don't trickle attack then we have already explained how to survive the choke by expanding to metal. If they do trickle attack we've also examined how to defend with just archers while you do expand to get metal, so I'd say that "Stop a rush" includes all of them. "Survive a rush" means just that, staying alive.


[q=Wodan][q=snoopy]I see no reason to add additional - unbalanced - complexity, which would require more balancing and throw our already complicated balance into disarray. [/q]

If you can answer all of the above, then you might be correct. Not saying you aren't, just saying that I have yet to see any answers. And that is even for an experienced player. Once that is established we will still have the question of whether it's a good environment for newbies or whether there is some other fix that could help the newbie situation.[/q]

Do you want me to quote where we explained how to survive a rush? Also, having seen (and participated) in testing this game I think I can say that you don't know how precariously CIV is balanced. And as to the newbies question:

[q=Wodan]It's not just noobs. Even experienced players will have trouble handling a rush with archers. Do you seriously think archers can stand up to axes? And, even if they do, their game will be hosed because while they're busy fighting they're not able to build infrstructure or have workers make improvements.[/q]

Exerienced players can handle rushes with just archers fine, keep on expanding and then kill the SOBs who screwed themselves with the rush. It has been posted enough times, the game shouldn't be balanced so that rushing is impossible so that newbies don't have to think.

[q=wodan][q=Snoopy]Settlers and workers always cost, they cost the same for everyone. The point is that someone with a better start can more effectively afford to pay that cost. [/q]

You're talking about opportunity, not implementation.

First off, everyone does not have the same opportunity. A player who starts with Ag has a better opportunity than one who starts with Mysticism.

Secondly, each player has different food, hammers, and resources. A player with 2 wheat and starting with Ag will have a lower implementation cost to build a settler.[/q]

WTF? First of all, to Snoopy, Expansive and Imperialistic still get a boni to expanding...but ignoring these as they get balanced to the general model and not vice versa, the point that settlers and workers cost the same to the defender and rusher in absolute numbers and very differently relative terms. In reality it costs the rusher more to expand, because the rusher will have worse land, so won't be able to regrow as fast after slaving, and will also be spending so many resources on getting the rush together that they will be behind the growth curve. The defender is the one who gets the (very) nice land and gets the settler out early on.

[q=wodan][q=Snoopy]Defensive units also need to be built - you're talking about making this cheaper. [/q]

This is opportunity. A player who chooses to perform a rush is not going to be building defensive units. So it is moot that they are cheaper... he is not going down that path.[/q]

Wrong idea. Defensive units will be better/cheaper so the rusher has to get out more units in the same amount of time (if possible) to have the same chance of winning the rush, hence making the rush harder.

[q=wodan][q=Snoopy]Ultimately, what's happening is that there are certain costs:

• Cost to build a new city: Settler, worker(s)
• Cost to defend yourself: Defensive units
• Cost to rush an opponent

You are talking about raising the third cost by lowering the second cost. It's a straightforward trade - you make it 30% cheaper to defend, so the player with a strong position can either build 30% more defenses - raising the cost to rush by requiring 30%+ more offense - or can build more cities and thus more easily grow to win.[/q]

That assumes that "strong position" affects both the opportunity to build defenses as well as the opportunity to build settlers, which is not necessarily the case.

Even if it is, there are other options than you list.
Cost to build infrastructure
Cost to fake a rush

I'm sure there are more.[/q]

To Snoopy, if archers cost 20 hammers, you'd make a rush atleast 50% harder; they aren't easy to pull off now against good opponents.

To Wodan, The only other cost should be setting up a sentry net around your land. If you have good land but no metal and you are growing into it you shouln't be faking a rush. or building infrastructure at all. You don't build a barracks if you have no units, you build units. Only when you have enough units to defend with should you be getting a barracks or granary. Doing so is gambling that you won't get rushed for a rather meagre payoff compared to having a role in the game.

[q=Wodan][q=Snoopy]This is the complex mechanics of game balance; if you change one element, you change several others also. Make a unit that counters chariots+axemen, and you get more frequent sword or horse archer use.[/q]

I've responded to this point before. It's Fine. Swords and HAs allow the player more time to discover he doesn't have Copper (or whatever) and to actively pursue a second choice strategy.[/q]

And your response was? A Sword is the counter to the archer anywhere but a city with cultural defense or on a hill (which requires CR swords...). HA now are an anticatapult unit (I'm suprised no SP players have realised just how broken the HA is now tbh). They are both countered by earlier (and cheaper) units.

[q=Wodan][q=Snoopy]Make it harder to take a city, and people will build more cities, meaning a civ with more room will expand more and grow larger, faster.[/q]

How do you reach that conclusion? I can see how you would say a civ with a better starting position would grow larger, faster.[/q]

By having played the game for far to long and knowing it far too well. The less you have to spend on a standing army means you can spend more on expanding (settlers and workers). You don't have to work hills as much to get the hammers to make the army, so you can work more cottages to earn the gold to afford more cities which themselves can grow and work more cottages and/or hills. Exponential grow etc.

[q=Wodan][q=Snoopy]There's a reason it's not ... to force you to make the decision of which to research. Otherwise people would just beeline to whichever they had, and then rush even faster; this hiding actually makes rushing harder (as if you have a start where you're worried about being rushed, you can go straight to archery). [/q]

It also makes defending against a rush harder. It's harder to defend using archers than it is using Axes or Chariots. For one thing, archers cannot do anything except protect the city. Look up at the list of things that need defending... the city is only the first step.[/q]

[q=Krill]If you can't get be bothered to get archery before your opponent has axes entering your land you deserve to die. As MP is played on quick speed, it takes atleast 3 turns to hook up copper (by city connected via river), possible more than 10 (you have to research wheel...). Both civs can get out a worker in the same amount of time. Both can chop (BW should always be the first tech that you aim for in MP). It shouldn't take more than 10 turns to get archery, and when that happens you should have either a settler half done (2 chops and a slave) or another worker to clear cut all of your land immediately so the axes can't sit on forests (personally I'll pretty much always get the 2nd worker before a settler in MP, as you have to chop most of your foests immediately anyway to speed developement).

Now, all things being equal player A has to now get together 115 hammers for 5 axes, whereas player B only needs 3 archers to hold his city (48 hammers). And player A has to walk his axes one tile at a time to player Bs' land, so if Player B can get out his archers and take the defensive positions he can force the axes onto flat ground where he can 2v1 them (if they are walked in 1 at a time, called trickle attacking, which you have to do early on in the game to get the choke established). If player A is going to rush and keep his intentions hidden from player B, and waits until all of his 5 or 6 axes are done then player B should have out his settler (walking time for axes and an extra 62 hammers difference between 3 archers and 5 axes, and a settler is only 65) and have planted on his nearest resource (preferably metal) and as he has 2 workers he should have been able to road to that site and have it scouted with an archer (or maybe two).[/q]

[q=Snoopy]So, you have both civs assumed identical, starting at the moment you research BW (assuming same techs to start with). Let's say you went worker first for both, and finished said worker 8 turns prior to BW being researched, allowing both civs to grow to size 2. One finds copper (A), the other (B) doesn't (and is aware of the civ nearby). If i'm civ B, I realize I am vulnerable to a rush, and immediately research hunting/archery (assume I don't start with it). I build a settler while i'm doing that, at size 2 I get 6 hammer-equivalents plus two chopped forests and finish the settler as my civ finishes archery. I go settle that city two turns' distance away. At this point, (A) has 3 axemen finished. I begin building (quickly) archers, and A sends the three axemen over. If I get archers started now (10 post BW), I have 4 built when those three axemen arrive, enough to survive (by turn 20 post-BW). At this point it's clear I'll survive, as I can out-build civ A, and with two cities I'll continue to do so (either producing archers in both cities, or using one to improve my civ). Not only will I survive, but I probably will actually outperform Civ A, since I have one more city, so long as I can protect my territory from a choke long enough to make the choke non-viable (say, putting archers on hills/forests so far).

The choke certainly will be hard to break off, but if I'm outperforming civ A, I can afford to attack axemen and lose one archer per axeman defeated (2 archers > 1 axeman generally). That exchange is a very good rate...[/q]

There's you answer.


[q=Wodan]Let me try to get to the bottom line. At the heart of the matter, a successful rush = good for me, bad for you. Is it good for the game to knock a player out in the first 50 turns? If the answer is "no" then we can ask Are there other options to making "good for me" able to be defined in more ways? Why does it have to be a "zero sum" game... why can't both players have a positive play experience in the early game?[/q]

You obviously weren't around for the PTWDG. There can only be one. At some point in the game there will only be one winner (forget permenant alliances...). Whether they die on turn 40 or turn 400 doesn't matter. If a player doesn't like dying to a rush I suggest you think about what one can do differently to make it harder for someone to kill you. When you have an answer to that think about what one can do to keep on expanding and then what you have to do to take the fight to the enemy. When a civ is playing to win killing a competitor on turn 40 can give them a huge boost and a better chance to win. "The Game" doesn't matter, you adjust to the situation. eg, Is diplo allowed? Can you persuade the other 5 players to choke and kill the rusher while he is weak from the efforts of the rush?

[snoopy369]

why can't both players have a positive play experience in the early game?

Imagine this start:

[-----------]
[*****A**B**]
[***********]
[**D*****C**]
[-----------]

Without a rush, how is B going to have a positive play experience? This is a very realistic starting position on a pangaea. B must have a way to quickly take out A or C, or B will be confined to one or two cities for the entire game, and know early on he has no chance to win.

A reasonably skilled player can handle a rush fine from an equivalently skilled player, and it is an interesting strategic option. Just because you might lose earlier rather than later is not a reason to eliminate it.

[Krill]

[q=Snoopy]Without a rush, how is B going to have a positive play experience? This is a very realistic starting position on a pangaea. B must have a way to quickly take out A or C, or B will be confined to one or two cities for the entire game, and know early on he has no chance to win.[/q]

Actually in that situation I'd probably (try to) choke the civ with weaker land as well as kill the civ with better land. Give me Zulu with copper or Egypt/hattie and I might be able to choke D as well, if they played it loose.

[Reiko]

I would like to see tech that advances beyond modern times like they had in Civ: Call to Power.

[Lancer]

Like what? How does one know what the future holds?