conquests--unit balance even more absurd? resources?

[Antrine]

Alright, we're getting some steam going here, and just when it was getting so boring... gosh! Try playing against AI's that are not experiencing any resource scarcity! Matter of fact remove most resource requirements all together. Radical, um... I preserve the culture of the game by making a resource appear with each of the first ten or so techs. After that, hang on all is plentiful.

Now a little game/culture/design riddle.

Do you think to routinely hamper AI's with lack of iron or saltpeter and what not. Yet make difficulty settings that simply give the AI's nothing but hoards of cheap units, improvements and first crack at every Major Wonder via reduced production costs and support costs.

Or, drums roll on this one please; actually give the AI's near dead on chance with most resources via plentitude and pre-built road networks? Keeping most everything else equal with for instance, all Wonders made 'small wonders' and no Great Wonders at all?

What is the greater challenge? What gives more game playing satisfaction?

[player1]

Civ without both Saltpeter and Iron in middle ages is pretty much a dead civ.

You could opt for defensive war using lots of Trenuchets, Longbowmen and walled cities, but if you need to get to offense, it becomes problematic since best defender you can hope for is Spearmen, and they get slaughtered by Knights.

P.S.
Alternative is to play Greeks, Carthaginians, Indians or Mongols (if having horses), so that lack of iron/saltpeter won't hurt you too much.

[Last Conformist]

@Sir Ralph, actually, much of the reason I liked the reduced resource counts is that lack of critical resources now is a realistic threat even for Genghis Khan-like rulers. In PTW, Iron and Horses pretty much were the only strategic resources, because when the rest come along, I practically always had them within my borders. C3C has repeatedly forced me to trade or fight for Saltpeter, Oil, etc.

[Harovan]

The "repeatedly" is what buggers me. In plain Civ3 and PtW I had a good mix of games with either a full set of resources, or the lack of at most 2 or 3. Scarcity was an issue there too, since the resources are not evenly distributed. In Conquests I had so far resource problems in every game I started. This is tiresome and moves it dangerously close to the category "wargame", since war is often the only way to obtain a resource. There are, however, better wargames on the market.

[Dis]

I've been getting pissed at the lack of resources in my current games. So I decided to boost the seed to 100 (in the map set up screen for a new game).

It seems to be working. check this out. Yeah I know it doesn't make strategic resources very strategic. But iron is far too important. I have had 4 games in a row where I did not have iron (all losses). I've had enough. Even this game I barely got iron (by building on that other island).

the first one is of my territory (hittites)

[Dis]

one more. the only bad thing about this map is the lack of irrigation (in my starting position-not the zulus). This is zululand territory. they seem to have at least 2 sources of iron.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Antrine
No, no do not play the Greeks!! My god no, they just lost again and yet again...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&goto=newpost

That's just cruel, Antrine... you gotta go LINKING to my shame??!!

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Yes, I know. Those who like to play like Genghis Khan and tend to control half of the landmass anyway, won't suffer resource scarcity, and since it weakens their AI prey and makes further conquest easier, they even love it. Besides, there are even people who love cockroaches. This doesn't mean that all of a sudden they aren't vermin anymore.

I'm not sure where you are going there, SR. I like an "against all odds" game as much as the next guy ( ), and thus, just as for the Genghis Khan player, the current resource model is OK for me.

[Antrine]

Scarcity is an interesting game issue to debate and fortunately the game editor makes it a even more interesting debate.

Does scarcity lead to or insure a more interesting game?
Are the AI's more interesting when they lack critical resourses?
If you have all the best Great Wonders is that a more interesting game? Or if the AI's beat you to them near every time?

Personally, competing for Great Wonders was always something I detested and am not much interested in. Certainly such competition is gratifying sometimes, but then one player gets more and more and so unerringly dominates, especially if they can rack up two or three Wonders in a row. These things I disliked in CIV II and scarcity by design I would (personally) add to the above list of unlikable items.

Now, having experimented at length using what I consider wonderfully brilliant improvements to CIV III, namely Small Wonders, Improvements with all the editor tags and making maps with massive resources, beefed up terrain tiles layered in by a series of techs, I like this game. AI's can get menacingly powerful with all things being equal (production and unit allocations).

Set to 100? Try 1000 or 900 with a 900 dissappearance ratio to boot. And if using a designed map, pre-build the main road network and Civ starting positions that are each and every one great. I hamper growth by careful regulated control over settlers, which I believe are hands down the most valuable and important unit in the game.

Anyway, I suspect I am rambling, however some of it may be useful to someone.

[Antrine]

Er, sorry Theseus, I a lost little gold on your game...
It seems the victorious new Roman President would hear none of my pleas...

[Theseus]

It's cool, Antrine.

I wish there were more like you testing the boundaries of the game... none of any of us: Apolyton, CFC, RBC, Firaxis, Atari, on and on, know what is really there when you go to the limits. Bizarre, in a way, considering how many hours the world has invested in Civ3... i.e., you know things that the developers do not.

For instance, I consider the AU Mod to be FUNDAMENTALLY better than vanilla... but then, what is there that you have learned that we have not yet incorporated?

Anyway, thank you for your support in the failed Greek effort!!

[Kuciwalker]

I like to think about changes to the game, but am to lazy to implement and playtest them

[Theseus]

Admission: Me too. I post a lot, and then see what others come up with.

Works out OK, though, I think.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I like to think about changes to the game, but am to lazy to implement and playtest them

I'm more in the business of playtesting others' creations - we should team up with someone into implementation!

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yes, I know. Those who like to play like Genghis Khan and tend to control half of the landmass anyway, won't suffer resource scarcity, and since it weakens their AI prey and makes further conquest easier, they even love it. Besides, there are even people who love cockroaches. This doesn't mean that all of a sudden they aren't vermin anymore.

I won't turn this into a flame war. However, the fact that one person does or doesn't like any specific feature doesn't mean those who disagree are wrong. Besides, Firaxis has provided the tool (editor) to make it what you want, so I just don't see how there is any basis for complaint.

And as a note, I am a builder 80% of the time, not a warmonger, so the implied comment about G.Kahn doesn't even apply. My wars are one of three types:
-defensive, i.e. the AI attacks me
-focused offensives to obtain a resource I need (or keep it from an AI culture)
-late game war of elimination to wrap up the game