Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on improvements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    What about scaling the effect of befriending CSs, so the more influence you have with CSs, the more money you have to spend in order to get the next one into friend/ally status? Sort of like diminishing returns...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Fidel View Post
      What about scaling the effect of befriending CSs, so the more influence you have with CSs, the more money you have to spend in order to get the next one into friend/ally status? Sort of like diminishing returns...
      If you pay gold for influence enough, the influence gained per gold spent slowly- very slowly- decreases, making it more expensive to maintain good standing with city-states. If possible, though, the best option is always to complete a mission for them..

      Comment


      • #18
        I know. I was wondering whether one could code that any additional ally or friend costs more. I.e. it would cost more per puppet if you are a puppeteer than if you have just one satellite (e.g. food crutch).

        Comment


        • #19
          I wish the AI would actually take cities and just maybe have a couple of units to defend it's cities with.
          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ariovistus Maximus View Post
            I'm just saying they could be a little more complex. As far as balance, you can read Sulla's thoughts on the subject and I think you will see how all cities are not equal, and they can create balance issues.
            I wish each post here would have disclaimer "I am talking about SP" or "I am talking about MP", because in SP there should be imbalances and randomness - that's what makes game less repeatable, gives you strategies different each time and so on. What would be fun in SP game if all SC were identical, all technologies are perfectly balanced, all wonders are identical, all hexes producing similar resources and so on...
            Imbalance = variety = challenge in SP game = strategizing using current random set of imbalances you got on the map. In fact I would argue you need MORE imbalances so that on average the whole game is balanced (one side has one set of advantages, another has another set, and AI should use those). Again I am talking about SP portion. MP portion is different, and should be designed separately IMO.
            The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
            certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
            -- Bertrand Russell

            Comment


            • #21
              but all, or at least most, of them, are equally powerful
              Sorrry, you seem to be playing some other civ5 then..
              -- What history has taught us is that people do not learn from history.
              -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

              Comment


              • #22
                BTW, one thought that crossed my mind. What if Militaristic City-States gave your units experience points when you built them? It certainly would make them more interesting to have. Perhaps make it +5 in all cities. If you befriend 3 militaristic city-states, you get a free barracks in every city (or double the effectiveness of barracks, etc). It seems to fit the trend of the others. Cultural is culture without a culture building, maritime is food without a food building. Militaristic should be experience without an experience building.
                Beer is proof that God loves you and wants you to be happy - Ben Franklin

                Comment


                • #23
                  Interesting proposal. As it is now, unit gifting is not implemented well. If they are positioned halfway across the globe, it might take a lot of turns to bring the unit, all the time paying for its maintenance. I end up handing over those gifts to other city states, buffing them up in case someone attacks them. It takes about 3 turns for them to miraculously appear within their borders.
                  So militaristic civ should either give an unit straight into your territory, or give some XPs, as louie proposed.
                  I do not know if that would actually help AIs more when it comes to war, because they need all the help they can possibly get.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I do not know, but I like the current structure better. I think things like free barracks at 3 military SC are not scaled well with map and ... a bit boring.
                    Militaristic SC being too far is one of the parameters defining the value of SC to you. Why do you think all SC should be identical? It is good to have variety (in SP)
                    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
                    certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
                    -- Bertrand Russell

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, that is OK, but then the abstract 'three turn teleport' to another CS appears and it looks like my militaristic CS is actually good for supplying other CSs. I mean, I can live with that, but it is kinda awkward that the same kind of 'teleport' does not work if I want to transport the unit to my territory.
                      The distance will be the factor anyway, especially if they are far away and close to my rival.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Fidel View Post
                        Well, that is OK, but then the abstract 'three turn teleport' to another CS appears and it looks like my militaristic CS is actually good for supplying other CSs. I mean, I can live with that, but it is kinda awkward that the same kind of 'teleport' does not work if I want to transport the unit to my territory.
                        The distance will be the factor anyway, especially if they are far away and close to my rival.
                        I think it is one of the cases where gameplay>>reality. It is just characteristics of militaristic SC that they are useful only for supply of SC with military units. It is still quite powerful thing, however. Because if you are focused on SC as your main strategy, your can have most there civs surrounded by your SC with significant armies which is kind of like having your own armies WITHOUT PAYING FOR THEM. This is quite powerful.
                        The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
                        certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
                        -- Bertrand Russell

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I was wondering whether one could code that any additional ally or friend costs more.
                          Realistically, it would work in the opposite direction. It would make sense that if you influence several city-states, then the others would be in awe of your power.

                          BTW, one thought that crossed my mind. What if Militaristic City-States gave your units experience points when you built them?
                          Brilliant! That would make them useful. Or they could grant a bonus to unit production. See, that would make me want city-states. I find them only remotely useful, and in the mid-late game only, and then like you said only if they're nearby.

                          And if you consider that an city-state in medieval times gives you as much food as a granary does, you could actually justify militaristic CS's giving you more than 5XP/city.

                          Imbalance = variety = challenge in SP game = strategizing using current random set of imbalances you got on the map.
                          In the sense where imbalance means having fewer resources in your territory than other players do, and stuff like that, I would agree. It adds some spice to the game.

                          But making certain civs, city-states, and other features worthless by making them underpowered makes no sense. Making them useful would actually add more strategy to the game, because then you could actually play in ways that those features are designed to allow. As it is, why would I bother with militaristic cities when they accomplish nothing? I can think of better ways to challenge and handicap myself. Like increasing the difficulty, for example.

                          which is kind of like having your own armies WITHOUT PAYING FOR THEM. This is quite powerful.
                          You also can't control them, which means they will probably just sit at home if you go to war elsewhere, and they could possibly be turned against you if another AI gives them more money than you do.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            why would I bother with militaristic cities when they accomplish nothing?
                            Sounds like somebody who doesn't know how to use them
                            While I do find the other types of CS's more usefull, militaristic CS's can offer you a lot. I've played many games where I just didn't have the strategic resourses needed to go to war in my own territory. But the MSC's did. I've now stopped worring if I'm going to have the key military resourses in my area... I just count on the city states to offer them up. I now sell my own strategic resourses to other civs early to help relations and get additional money, using the resourses from the city states to actually build my army. Granted, you have to pay attention to whether the city state might lose them via attack, but if your getting them from multiple sourses, you are usually covered.

                            And in many cases, if I'm not playing a war monger game, MSC's provide me with all the units I need, so I don't have to waste time and resourses building them myself.

                            Yeah, the free food and culture from other CS's is nice, but don't undervalue the strengths of the MSC's. They also make good buddies during war
                            Keep on Civin'
                            RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              As far as giving you resources, any city-state will do that, so there's nothing special about MCS's in that regard.

                              I'll admit that for one thing I'm typically a peaceful player, and also that I haven't used a city-state in the late game. Why? Because after shelling out thousands of gold and getting a warrior every 20 turns as a reward (and a warrior quite a ways from my borders no less), I wasn't very interested in pursuing the deal any further.

                              I cannot, therefore, attest to the usefulness of an MCS for myself in wartime, but I do know that the MCS's of my rivals have never accomplished anything to speak of. I walked right by them, and it appears that their units rarely venture beyond their borders.

                              So I will allow two uses for MCS's. First, if they are near your borders they can secure and defend that part of your border. Secondly, having the loyalty of an MCS probably increases other civs' opinion of your military might, which means they're less likely to go to war with you.

                              And I suppose a third would be in the late game when they give you decent units.

                              But is that even remotely comparable to MCS's, which give you tons of food in the late-game, allowing you to concentrate on production/science/money and actually pump out quality units, in your own borders, of your own choosing? Or CCS's which enable you to take advantage of more social policies, which besides granting bonuses will directly help you win a cultural victory?

                              See, that's my point. An MCS or CCS, anywhere on the globe, and at any time in the game, is very useful. Even from what you've said, CCS's are useful only in certain circumstances. I.e., if you don't have resources you need, or if they are nearby.

                              Again, if they gave me XP bonuses in my cities it would be an entirely different story.
                              Last edited by Ariovistus Maximus; September 30, 2010, 16:04.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                People always seem to forget the 33% of the research bonus (or whatever it is) Some might say it's not enough but multiply it by 15 CSs and it adds up. Every CS can provide something useful. And they're a lot easier to keep allied then people seem to think.
                                It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                                RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                                Comment

                                Working...