Tweet
Conclusion: Diffusion is the Solution.
Diffusion is the Solution: A polemic [rant] followed by a thesis (Rant opptional)
Polemic:
This is yet another thread thats an off shoot of the FP/HP debate, but addressing a very common comlaint and the idea of 'realism' and gaming. The common complaint from many who defend the combat system is that the endgame of Civ2 was onesided after one player got a huge technological lead- you just made a few howlitzers and, using their RR's if any, steamrolled them mercilessly, no thinking, no strategy, no nothing. Now, I must admit that some days, I am in the mood for such slaughter, but a challenging battle would really be more fun because, even though i would probably get a heart attck, the satisfaction in beeting a worthy foe is nice. So, the argument goes, by instituting a combat system that overvalues old units (or undervalues new units) the backwards have a chance, giving the player a real fight. Also, the new resource system just makes the situation of haves, have nots WORST than before, since it's not only about tech but resources too. Well, as many know, I disagree with the idea that the thing to change then was the combat system. I think a combination of the Civ2 and SMAC combat system plus a few of the new features would have made the perfect combat sysytem. Yes, ancient units would get steamrolled, but they SHOULD. The greatest problem, ladies and gentlemen, is not whether ancients units should have a better chance at fighting modern ones (they SHOULD NOT) but whether ancient units should even fight modern ones- and the greatest problem here is the science system.
There are many who call for 'realism' in the combat system. Well, if pure 'realism' or close faccimily is important, then why not more howls at the UTTERLY ILLOGICAL nature of hoe science in Civ3, or nay civ game, works? Heres the deal. Somehow, I know beforehand what kind of technology my sicentist needs to learn (hey, there this thing called iron, and we could probably use it to make stronger swords for cheaper, so now go tell me what iron is and how it could be used to make better swords.....) and you also know EXACTLY how long it will take them to learn this based on the resources you are giving them (by the way, it will take you a century to discover how to do this with 10 gold, so, get going....). I could probably come up with some very strange case were musketmen would beat a Panzer division, but i simply CAN'T overcome the logical paradoxes of the science system. Now, better science systems exists that are far more realistic. Think of the blind research mode in SMAC, or the much earlier research system of MOO1. But for most gamers (me included, most of the time) this type of system is annoying because I then lack Godlike control, which is why you could turn it off in SMAC and why MOO2 didn't use it. Still, civ games allow one player to build nearly impossible tech leads with even their immidiate neighbors. Since espionage in this game is prohibitively expensive, the only way science gets around is by diplomacy- which means that the computer, or gamer, has the ability to build a huge tech lead and make sure the computer never gets anywere (there are already posts about how to make the A.I. pay itself into terminal tech backwardness). It is only because gamers or the A.I. are able to create nearly impossible tech leads that ancient units ever fight modern armor (besides the fact that the A.I. never upgrades). A true solution then to boring endgames or even steamrolling by ancient warriors (once the combat system is 'improved') is to make rules to keep tech differences to a manegable [realistic] level, insuring a challenging game.
Thesis:
Institute three new rules, which should not be that hard to code in. The two more radical should be optional, so gamers can ignore them if it does not suit their style.
1. Old complaint, but insure that the A.I. update its units to the most tech advaced possible (this takes resources into account)
2. Bring back tech capture. Unitl this game, you could take tech throught war. This happens in real life and should happen in the game. (the US missile program begun with German equipment and German scientist capture in war) Now, the way it was done before was too powerful (how could I get to choose froma lsit of all i don't know?). What I say, is have chance, small but not inconsequential, of taking tech you lack when to conquer a city. certain things, like the inclusion of libs, unis's or wonders, should increase the chance [forces gamer to defend such cities more carefully as well as being more likely in real life] The chance should be very great if you wipe them out or take capitol [secret documents].
3. Include diffusion-(the solution). One can't control ideas folks- how many civs 'discovered' gunpowder? One. How many use it? Many. Did the Chinese give this away? Certainly not- the idea just travelled- as do human beings. Diffusion of ideas is very powerful. The resaon native American civs were so unrepared was that they were isolated from the mass of humanity and thus did not share in the great exchange of germs and ideas that those in Eurasia engaged in. Even if Europe did get a large tech lead over the rest of wolrd, the tech difference within europe was never that great (again, diffusion). How would this work? well, every tech would have a grace period (whch gets shorter every new age) in which one has an assured monopoly if they were the only ones to discover it through their own effort. After this period, every turn there would be a small random chance that another civ would get the tech, just for free. Now, various variable influence this chance. The other civ need to be in contact. Land borders imrpove the chances. Trade greatly increases the chances (make openning trade routes a real question and may allow for 'isolationist' policies like those of Japan) and so do diplomatic agreements. war would make diffision very difficult (take it through conquest!).
I would add, that while so radical a chnage it peopably will never make it in, blind researching ala SMAcv should have also been possible.
Polemic:
This is yet another thread thats an off shoot of the FP/HP debate, but addressing a very common comlaint and the idea of 'realism' and gaming. The common complaint from many who defend the combat system is that the endgame of Civ2 was onesided after one player got a huge technological lead- you just made a few howlitzers and, using their RR's if any, steamrolled them mercilessly, no thinking, no strategy, no nothing. Now, I must admit that some days, I am in the mood for such slaughter, but a challenging battle would really be more fun because, even though i would probably get a heart attck, the satisfaction in beeting a worthy foe is nice. So, the argument goes, by instituting a combat system that overvalues old units (or undervalues new units) the backwards have a chance, giving the player a real fight. Also, the new resource system just makes the situation of haves, have nots WORST than before, since it's not only about tech but resources too. Well, as many know, I disagree with the idea that the thing to change then was the combat system. I think a combination of the Civ2 and SMAC combat system plus a few of the new features would have made the perfect combat sysytem. Yes, ancient units would get steamrolled, but they SHOULD. The greatest problem, ladies and gentlemen, is not whether ancients units should have a better chance at fighting modern ones (they SHOULD NOT) but whether ancient units should even fight modern ones- and the greatest problem here is the science system.
There are many who call for 'realism' in the combat system. Well, if pure 'realism' or close faccimily is important, then why not more howls at the UTTERLY ILLOGICAL nature of hoe science in Civ3, or nay civ game, works? Heres the deal. Somehow, I know beforehand what kind of technology my sicentist needs to learn (hey, there this thing called iron, and we could probably use it to make stronger swords for cheaper, so now go tell me what iron is and how it could be used to make better swords.....) and you also know EXACTLY how long it will take them to learn this based on the resources you are giving them (by the way, it will take you a century to discover how to do this with 10 gold, so, get going....). I could probably come up with some very strange case were musketmen would beat a Panzer division, but i simply CAN'T overcome the logical paradoxes of the science system. Now, better science systems exists that are far more realistic. Think of the blind research mode in SMAC, or the much earlier research system of MOO1. But for most gamers (me included, most of the time) this type of system is annoying because I then lack Godlike control, which is why you could turn it off in SMAC and why MOO2 didn't use it. Still, civ games allow one player to build nearly impossible tech leads with even their immidiate neighbors. Since espionage in this game is prohibitively expensive, the only way science gets around is by diplomacy- which means that the computer, or gamer, has the ability to build a huge tech lead and make sure the computer never gets anywere (there are already posts about how to make the A.I. pay itself into terminal tech backwardness). It is only because gamers or the A.I. are able to create nearly impossible tech leads that ancient units ever fight modern armor (besides the fact that the A.I. never upgrades). A true solution then to boring endgames or even steamrolling by ancient warriors (once the combat system is 'improved') is to make rules to keep tech differences to a manegable [realistic] level, insuring a challenging game.
Thesis:
Institute three new rules, which should not be that hard to code in. The two more radical should be optional, so gamers can ignore them if it does not suit their style.
1. Old complaint, but insure that the A.I. update its units to the most tech advaced possible (this takes resources into account)
2. Bring back tech capture. Unitl this game, you could take tech throught war. This happens in real life and should happen in the game. (the US missile program begun with German equipment and German scientist capture in war) Now, the way it was done before was too powerful (how could I get to choose froma lsit of all i don't know?). What I say, is have chance, small but not inconsequential, of taking tech you lack when to conquer a city. certain things, like the inclusion of libs, unis's or wonders, should increase the chance [forces gamer to defend such cities more carefully as well as being more likely in real life] The chance should be very great if you wipe them out or take capitol [secret documents].
3. Include diffusion-(the solution). One can't control ideas folks- how many civs 'discovered' gunpowder? One. How many use it? Many. Did the Chinese give this away? Certainly not- the idea just travelled- as do human beings. Diffusion of ideas is very powerful. The resaon native American civs were so unrepared was that they were isolated from the mass of humanity and thus did not share in the great exchange of germs and ideas that those in Eurasia engaged in. Even if Europe did get a large tech lead over the rest of wolrd, the tech difference within europe was never that great (again, diffusion). How would this work? well, every tech would have a grace period (whch gets shorter every new age) in which one has an assured monopoly if they were the only ones to discover it through their own effort. After this period, every turn there would be a small random chance that another civ would get the tech, just for free. Now, various variable influence this chance. The other civ need to be in contact. Land borders imrpove the chances. Trade greatly increases the chances (make openning trade routes a real question and may allow for 'isolationist' policies like those of Japan) and so do diplomatic agreements. war would make diffision very difficult (take it through conquest!).
I would add, that while so radical a chnage it peopably will never make it in, blind researching ala SMAcv should have also been possible.
Comment