Why I may never play a CIV gm again after nearly 20 yrs

[MattPilot]

Notice that there is a Rule set under the scenarios where NO CIV has any specific traits and ALL are created equal.

Try that.

Also, why are you whinning about war making? If anything, its you who's starting the war. I have no problem whatsoever going to the modern age without a single war. Even when i'm surrounded by neighbors. How do i do that? I give in to their demands. If you don't like their demand, well then your doomed for war. Either stand up for what you want, or back down and live in peace.

Though personally i prefer the war making and wish the game had more tactical depth in the modern age (like making all modern motorized units as "wheeled" <- like the early catapult). Gives it the extra umph.

[hoppy43000]

well matt 1st off im not playing a scenerio therefore the option you speak of is not available. 2ndly. I do not play the game just to make war as you do, i prefer diplomatic games just my style for 200 yrs america rarely if ever entered a war unless it was attacked 1st

survival doesnt always mean war So no im not the 1 causing the wars

antrine i just did a start of a game where my civ and 2 others were in fact less than 10 squares from me on what was a gm with following parameters

regent level, huge map, 8 civs random continent and temp.


this is far from unusual it tends to happen frequently

[okblacke]

Nearly 20 years? What were you playing in 1984? Empire? I missed that one, though I did play "Hammurabi" as a wee lad in the very late '70s.

Games have come a long way, haven't they?

The cool thing about Civ games is that if you like them--not any specific Civ game, but just the concept of strategic empire building--there are soooo many options around. Even within specific Civ games, there's so much more flexibility about the rules that it's almost hard to justify complaining about them. (Some people need no justification, of course.)

It sounds to me like you're a similar player to myself, or to the way I used to play. I just want to build my empire in peace. In Civ 2, my dream start was a sizeable island I was alone on, with as little interaction with the AI as possible. In retrospect, it seems kind of dumb: I'd either go through the entire game to space launch without ever interacting with another society, or I'd have tanks and rails by the time I ran into anybody. But I had fun. Peaceful fun.

Civ 3 does not work that way at all. You have to interact aggressively (not violently, but aggressively) with others to stay in the game, except at the lower levels of difficulty. Conquests makes this even more vital by reducing the strategic and luxury resources. Trade, trade, trade, kiss a little ass, and you can have peace, at least for long stretches. If someone attacks you, it'll be all the easier for you to get others to gang up on him.

As for the AI expanding toward you: yes, it does. Just as you should expand toward it. If you want to dominate, you need to choke off your rivals' expansion. It can still be done peacefully, but it needs to be done.

It's not a perfect model, but you do have the opportunity now to express opinions on alternatives for Civ 4.

[ok]

[Antrine]

Well, Hoppy unless you are willing to avail yourself of the 'editor' then as the random start-ups are now configured for the general public you are correct.

The huge map you are referring to is set default 160 by 160, in order expand it to up to 360 by 360 you will have to use the editor. And note 360 by 360 is over five time the playing area, which could routinely put the other civs 50 tiles away. And I take no chances about this for you can also set the spacing betwixt each civs starting point. And further do it manually afterwards.

Generate enough maps and you will not clearly remember which map is what, so you will be effectively playing blind, except to know it is a 360 square map and no one is close to anyone else.

I remember when all these choices were a fairy tale wish list and hey Christmas is past again...

Fun gaming,

[EnduringBlue]

You do not need to be in a specific scenario to adjust barbarian aggressiveness, you can set up your own map with the editor, change the settings, close the minimap so you don't see anything you don't want to see, and then generate a new random map and you can have a new map with all of your real issues addressed.

you can also select a generic "no civ specific traits" setting when setting up any game at all, so that you really can have everyone equal.

Many players have problems with various default settings, that is what the editor is for. you can change the variables so you have your own you-friendly game.

you can choose which civs can be alongside you in a game (there are 31 after all). no expansionist civs means no scouts beating you to the good stuff.

or even just leaving out zulu and aztecs, for example, would cut down on the fast-moving civs who tend to be most aggressive the earliest. i, too, am a builder and not a natural war-gamer.

there are also very many high players who have real problems with the tech tree timing of naval exploration. i would suggest a default of going into your editor and making galley available with mapmaking and doing away with curragh altogether. (i miss civ2's triremes constantly)

now you can't get a city out of a goodyhut, but you do stand a chance of getting a settler out of one, as long as you as you do not already have a settler on the map and don't have any in production. if you change what your city is working on for a turn, you will find yourself getting an occasional settler out of the huts.

resource placement is a risk. unless you don't want a truly random map, you can't guarantee there will be iron on your continent, and that's a risk you'll just have to take each time you play.

one other thing: if you go into the editor on your Huge map you can manually increase the min distance between starting locations. the default is 20. playing on archipelago also sometimes gives you a nice sized island basically to yourself, too.

I think there are really things you can try to make your game something you will enjoy more.

[Standup]

for 200 yrs america rarely if ever entered a war unless it was attacked 1st

mmhh...

but sticking with the game i have to say i enjoy conquests much more than previous versions mainly because until now the 'builder' game was less rewarding to play.

I've played quite a few games now and if anything the Civs seem to be further away and most games i'm taking full advantage of the seafaring trait.

I do seem to have more problems with resources though and how much rarer they seem to be. Not sure if they've been tweaked or i've just been unlucky ? One game despite owning 50% of the land mass i had no saltpeter, iron, coal, rubber or oil.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by skywalker


I thought the earliest cities were around 3000 or 4000 BC in Mesopotamia

Mostly true, but Jericho in Israel and Catal Huyuk in Anatolia were first by a long shot.

You'd never know it with the way history is taught in most schools. It always starts with the Sumerians.

[steven8r]

EnduringBlue, I've gotten a city out of a hut before. I remember because it really peeved me about its location--it was totally in the wrong spot . I remember thinking, "Why couldn't it have been a Settler, or even Angry Warriors?" This was w/ PTW. That might have changed in C3C, however.

Back OT,
Hoppy, you could edit a mod to allow Curraghs to carry a unit, or make Galleys available w/ Alphabet (or the Wheel, or whichever tech you think appropriate.)

Without using the editor, there is a good use for Curraghs. Explore. Especially since Communications Trading comes so much later, it's easier to contact other civs by sea--more movement than on land. The more civs you know, the more techs become available sooner--they research some, you get others and trade them. The more civs that know a tech, the lower the price. If you get a tech that no one else has, you can sell it to everyone you know.

I've managed to play a couple of epic games w/ C3C as a builder. Yes, it got crowded quickly and the AI was all around me, but I managed to be peaceful until the very end (I chose to go to war to start my GA).

The scarcity of resources makes early exploration and trading VERY important in this latest iteration of civ.

As a fellow civer, I hope you find some enjoyment from the game. If not, there's always Civ2 until Civ4 becomes available.

Steven

[Sarxis]

There's quite a few things that can be changed by the editor.

It can be worthwhile to learn how to use it for those who don't like the vanilla flavor of the game.

[vmxa1]

hoppy43000 you are correct that it is now very hard to not use war as a means of winning the game. I feel this is due to the change in resources and luxs distribution.

If one civ lands in a spot to get the key resources and had enough lux to pacify the citizen they can become a killer.

Those that do not must aquire them and they can really only do it by taking the land.

I did manage to get to industrial age without a war in just one game.

This was not the case in PTW, you could build peacefully at times, other than OCC.

You could try to generate a map and place the civs where you want them and redistribute resource to appease all, but that sppoils the game as you know the map.

[hoppy43000]

VXm, thats why i truly feel we need a CIV4, c3c is a nice addd on but the majority of its improvements, scenerios and editor aside seem to make the game more like a war game.. than a better version of civ at least in my humble opinion of the vanilla gm.. theredidnt seem to be the diplomatic improvements, nor the addition of zones of control as with SMAC which was talked about...

and your right i could use the editor but isnt the fun of random, the discovery i w2ant a "Smarter AI not a more agressive 1 and 1 who basically stands by his word.. unless you play the most basic lvl that rarely happens

[dexters]

Originally posted by hoppy43000
sky thats tho poin t tho in other version the distribution was spread out more evenly even with 8 civs theres no real reason on a huge map that you should run into 2-3 other civs in 1st 10 turns.. yet this seems to happen regularly..

sure less civs easier but my gripe falls more in no matter homany civs why is it that the ai always gravitates toward you.. ie sets many civs near you,,, has ai gravitate is citybuilding toward you etcc

what i was trying to say is the random generator should at least set you with a chance to survive Ive seen world created where you play romans on a huge content yet no where on that continent is iron available.

and based on the current tech tree design and lack of sea travel it could be in the ADs before you even have the abilty to travel to another island... what im saying is seafaring WAS around 4000 yrs ago why in this gm does it now take so long to effectively get it you concieveably must research 3-4 tech before having basic sea travel. in Civ2 this wasnt the case

playing less civs is the easy way out, id like to see better refinements in the AI and techs

You're playing regent? I've never had much of a problem being in too many wars in that level.

You need a strong military, even if you don't use it. You need it as a deterrant. You should be PREPARED to go to war. That's the key. If you have a strong military, other civs will leave you alone and you can be in your own little corner to build a great trading empire to your hearts content.

You may also be interested in my style of play, which is pretty much a pragmatic builder (war only if need be) type game. I hate large unproductive empires and would rather build myself, and also use other means to control the world. But it's not for everyone. (Click on the Machiavellian Doctrine link on my siggy to know more)

In anycase, I find it kind of weird that you find the new C3C so painful it's destroying your enjoyment. Was it a jump for PTW to C3C or vanilla Civ3 to C3C? If it is the latter, there may be a bit of a gameplay shock since you missed the changes in PTW. Your complaints about barbhuts and victory chances seem really minor. The spearman winning v. tank thing have always been there.

The AI is generally fair under regent and only has 3 real cheats. One thing you need to learn to how the AI thinks. Once you understand the basic mechanics of how the game works, it will be very apparent to you how easy it is to beat the AI and how all the advantages you thought you saw were just illusions. Getting cities from goody huts is very much tied to expansionist trait, which guarantees goodies. If you're not expansionist, don't expect cities or too many goodies from goody huts.

Edit2: I've not have to replay a turn for ages. You have to make a mental barrier for yourself not to give into the temptation of reloading. The only time I've reloaded from an autosave is if I leave a game for some extended period of time and forgot where I last left off.

[MattPilot]

using the editor does NOT mean you do NOT have random maps. Do you understand that?

If you only change the rules, but leave the map blank, then you just go to the scenario folder, select the rule set you want, and then its going to load up a screen just like any other 'epic' game, where you choose your random settings <- the only difference is, your using different game rules.

[WarpStorm]

"Si vis pacem para bellum!" (If you want peace, prepare for war!). The AI does not like to go to war with players it thinks is stronger. This does not mean that you have to go to war, just that you are prepared for it. I've had a lot of relatively peaceful games including a few where the only battles were against barbs.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by hoppy43000
for 200 yrs america rarely if ever entered a war unless it was attacked 1st

But that's irrelevent. THey still had to DEFEND, and you seem to be wishing for a game where you don't have to fight at all.