Emperor level needs a rethink.

[Cerbykins]

Seeing how many times I keep bringing up my latest wretched game, and keep giving out advice while still under the 'settler' banner (questionable authority ), I'm wondering how long I'm gonna last before someone rips into me for being an angry, opinionated little... ********

I can't help it, the AI brings it out in me. And because my bizarre little personal philosophy sems to have almost removed my ability to hate, something non-human has to get it taken out on

Seriously though. Seeing as FP now looks like toast, how are we going to get far beyond Emperor? Or, I should say, how are you guys going to get me past Emperor...

I have been weaned off that bad habit of FP core #2 now, and very recently even started using the lux slider and took over my own workers... (the first, ages ago I saw that marketplaces no longer gave 50% to lux output, and thought - "oh, 2 lux per happy face NOW? Waste of trade..." - for letting the AI have the workers, I assumed it wouldn't be dumb enough to waste turns. After watching the same workers bounce back and forth between the same boundary RR/road, and trying things MY way, the lesson was quickly learnt )

Point remains though, I don't see how it can be done. But we have the world's strat experts here, so I'm sure SOMEONE will beat Sid level first and explain it for me

[Capt Dizle]

Can one just bump threads here?

[Capt Dizle]

ANyway, I just want to point out that in this thread we see that Firaxis allowed an intern to implement something in the game. This is pretty damning evidence that Firaxis did not respect the project. It's not as if Civ is just any game. Interns should not even been allowed in the building.

[Arrian]

Jeem,

I think Aeson's point in adding a level between Monarch and Emperor is a good one. Then again, it's not that much different from my first statement on this thread - now that Sid has been added, perhaps a rebalancing of all the levels could be in order? If you find one too easy, up to the next.

I would be happy to see a level between Monarch and Emperor. A long time ago, I suggested one that gives the AI the 20% production/science bonuses from Emperor, but keeps human happiness at Monarch level (2 born continent). Or vice-versa.

In the meantime, however, I'll stick with Monarch with occasional forays up to Emperor when I get a little cocky.

-Arrian

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Interns should not even been allowed in the building.

:LOL: And how would people get a start in the industry if new people aren't even allowed in the building? You realize that your idol BR was a newbie once and Sid had to risk letting him touch the code also.

[vmxa1]

It is not the interns, so much as it it is their trainers. With a good program of guidance interns can be very productive. True that is not often the case.

[notyoueither]

Where is the intern bit? So much text, I missed it.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Jeem
Normal maps are great for a quick game every now and then.

Dude, your definition of "quick" and mine are completely different, I think.
I play Standard size maps, a couple of hours a night, and it takes me way more than a week or two to finish.

I don't mind that, it's just that I wouldn't call that "a quick game".

I'd love to play Large or maybe even Huge, but time is not the reason I don't...
...it's that (insert long string of expletives here) diplo screen. There's not a good UI Design or Programming excuse for not having the ability to put all the Civs on the screen at once. In fact, considering the importance of the relationships between multiple civs, it's a really poor UI design.

If all my opponents showed up on that screen, I'd gladly spend the next 6 months playing a single large/huge game. But I'm not going to work that hard with the UI - rather, against the UI.

Anyway, I rambled.

The point is, 2-3 hours per night, 5-7 days per week.
10-21 hours weekly.
2+ weeks per game at standard size.
That is not quick.

Quick would be starting and finishing a game in 1 2-4 hour sitting, possibly 2 sittings.

That's my definition. Yours seems to be different.
How long does it take you to play Standard? Large? Huge?

Just curious.
Thanks.

[Jeem]

The point is, 2-3 hours per night, 5-7 days per week.
10-21 hours weekly.
2+ weeks per game at standard size.
That is not quick.

Quick would be starting and finishing a game in 1 2-4 hour sitting, possibly 2 sittings.

That's my definition. Yours seems to be different.
How long does it take you to play Standard? Large? Huge?

Just curious.
Thanks.

A large map would take me about 4 days at 4-6 hours a day, and a huge map around 6 days at 4-6 hours a day. When you aren't doing a lot of attacking, the game is so much faster. My PC is an ancient P3 running at 800 Mhz, so it's not even fast 'inbetween' turns or anything. I do usually only play with 8 civs because that's the hotseat limit, so my turns are probably much faster than if you have the full amount of civs on for the map size. I've noticed a marked slowdown even very early in the game on Huge maps with 16 civs.

[Capt Dizle]

A good strategy game should not should not last a high school student past graduation. College graduation I mean.

If I start a strategy game and finish it in the same calendar year it wasn't worth playing. I was gonna buy Ron until I heard you could play a game in an hour. You couldn't give me a copy.

A good strategy game should be complex and deep enough that after loading the game turn, it should be normally to spend an hour or two looking at the position and making notes before even begining to schedule a time for due consideration of the possibility making a move.

Yeah, the diplomacy UI sucks.

[Jeem]

A good strategy game should be complex and deep enough that after loading the game turn, it should be normally to spend an hour or two looking at the position and making notes before even begining to schedule a time for due consideration of the possibility making a move.

You'll no doubt love Moo3 then. It's a bit like running an accounts office. For the government.

A good strategy game would be one that let the player decide how they wanted to play it, and also be level based depending on this. Therefore, If you want to micromanage every single aspect of your nation then the game should still pose a challenge at the highest levels (assuming you are actually micromanaging effectively).

You should give Balance of Power (1990 edition) a go, or try out Stars! if you like being right into the guts of things.

[Aeson]

If I start a strategy game and finish it in the same calendar year it wasn't worth playing.

...

A good strategy game should be complex and deep enough that after loading the game turn, it should be normally to spend an hour or two looking at the position and making notes before even begining to schedule a time for due consideration of the possibility making a move.

Sounds a lot like what happens in Civ 3 PBEM Demo games.

You can play Civ 3 this way, put all the time you want into it, and the time you put into it will pay off. You can also load up a game and move your units helter skelter as fast as you can. Make a lot more mistakes, but the pace of the game is much faster. Isn't depth giving you the option to play either way (or somewhere inbetween)?

[ducki]

Since chess is the ultimate strategy game, IMO, and you can play a well-matched game of it with another human in as little as a couple of hours, or as much as a couple of years, length of a given game seems a poor measure of the quality of the game.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Aeson


Sounds a lot like what happens in Civ 3 PBEM Demo games.

You can play Civ 3 this way, put all the time you want into it, and the time you put into it will pay off. You can also load up a game and move your units helter skelter as fast as you can. Make a lot more mistakes, but the pace of the game is much faster. Isn't depth giving you the option to play either way (or somewhere inbetween)?

Yeah, I used to play 40-50 hours a week of SMAC PBEM. And then I joined a second game.

Seriously, playing SMAC PBEM against some of the best of the best was easily the most gaming fun I ever had. And I really did spend an hour just looking at the board before moving (not to mention the diplomacy side- sometimes sending a dozen emails to a half dozen SMACsters scattered all over the world. Sigh. Them was the days.


But no, that is not depth. Depth would be an option for players to use diplomacy, politics, economy and religion to dominate warmongers. As well as having really different playstyles to victory. In Civ3, played at the highest level of skill, its all about the military rush. Heck, you know that. GOTM anyone?

[Aeson]

But no, that is not depth. Depth would be an option for players to use diplomacy, politics, economy and religion to dominate warmongers.

Warfare is an integral part of the Civ game, and passing on it will hamper your ability to dominate the AI on higher difficulty levels. 'Tough' means you have to use everything at your disposal to win... you can't turtle and do as well as someone who is taking advantage of every opportunity that presents itself. You also can't ignore the other facets of the game and hope to do well. Warmongering efficiently is about setting things up through economics, diplomacy, and research, to give you a military advantage you can leverage with your more numerous, more efficiently used, and/or better units.

A warmonger who disregards diplomacy, politics, economy, and religion (culture?) will be dominated . Economy is especially important. Diplomacy can win you games, and if you don't think so, try playing some OCC. It's all Diplomacy. If culture isn't important, Coracle would have always dominated the AI... right?

You can beat Deity peacefully. Easier than you can beat Deity without research or diplomacy. Of course you won't be able to conquer a huge swath of land peacefully, but it would be ludicrous if you could! That's what warfare is for... conquering.

As well as having really different playstyles to victory. In Civ3, played at the highest level of skill, its all about the military rush. Heck, you know that. GOTM anyone?

This is your problem, you look at a playstyle and say 'not as effective as this one' and then assume there is no depth because you won't play a playstyle you think is less efficient. The depth is dependant on what you put into the game. Same for any game. You can play so many different variants on Civ 3 that it's not even funny. Once you try a few, and get good at them, you'll see that even your view on what is effective and what isn't is off too. Warmongering is very straightforward, and doesn't require too much thought outside what is required to set up a good rush. Think a bit and you can find a lot of other ways to dominate the AI though.

You can dominate the AI on Deity as a builder. Not many people do it, and it's hard, but it can be done.
Your score won't be as high, but who cares about score? You know the skill that went into your game and that's all that matters.

Finally, if you look at Civ 3 as a means to score... yes it will be one-dimensional. Even the best scoring systems are that way. If you look at Civ 3 as offering new challenges to overcome in new settings, you'll never find 'the bottom'.