Its Lonely (Boring) at the Top

[Wrong_shui]

Originally posted by rid102


Minus Wales.

That was the bit I liked.

DAMN TRUE

[Redstar]

to Venger

what res is that picture? the units look nice and big.

if you want a challenge let the other civs live into the industrial era. Then try and take them all out starting in 1975.

Use a big map.

Those guys wander around with clusters of 24 modern tanks.
the sea units they come up with are even more impressive.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
The claim is that there is nothing to do once one has obtained a dominant position in the game.

I fail to see how this is caused by the caps that were put in place to make it more difficult to excel. In fact, I would have expected the argument to go the other way; because in Civ an insurmountable tech lead (or other lead) is so hard, it is much more challenging to play even when you've established a somewhat dominant position.

Actually, think of it this way: I'm at a point where ANY science spending between 30% and 100% gives me exactly the same results. Whether I'm researching space flight, or going back to discover monarchy which I've missed the first time around, I still can't get under 4 turns.

On one hand, this means that I have more money than I can spend, since upping the science over 30% doesn't help much. (And more realistically, I could drop it to 20% and still stay ahead of the competition quite comfortably.)

On the other hand, it means I don't really need to stay a democracy, either. I could just as well go Monarchy and have less unit support costs, less war weariness, and military police to keep the population happy. Or I could go the Communist way and also get to be able to build anything in those far off cities, without rushing production.

I'm just saying that hard-coded limits are a lame solution. E.g., off the top of my head:

1) There's already a piece of code that makes it cheaper do discover something, if everyone else has it. Make the effect more so. If everyone else in the world knows how to make iron swords, chances are I don't need many turns to figure it out too. (And it should be based on HOW FAR behind you are, too, if it isn't already. E.g., once one or more nations are already in the modern times, everyone else should have an easier time finishing discovering the rest of their ancient technologies.)

2) Make science alliances possible. Two backwards countries could join their forces to throw their combined science output at a single discovery. So if I dominate half the world and everyone else is still in the stone ages, they could do that to catch up. (The disadvantage being that both of you get it that tech, AND you'd automatically trade all techs when you sign the alliance. So it's not something you'd want to do when you're the only nation in the lead, but may come in handy when you're both far behind.)

3) Make the science production scale somewhat less linear. I.e., 100% science spending shouldn't give me exactly twice the advancement speed of 50% spending, and much less than 5 times the speed of only 20% spending. There's only so much that you can rush science.

4) It should become much easier to discover a technology, once you've won a fight against a unit based on that technology. I.e., if I don't have "The Wheel" and successfully defend against chariots, I might learn something in the process. (That's very roughly speaking how the Egyptians got chariots in real history, and also how the Romans got to have a fleet. Well, not exactly. But it could be approximated like that in the game, since supporting the actual historical circumstances would be well beyond the scope of a Civ game.)

And so on. There are TONS of ways to prevent an absolute scientific lead, without something as heavy handed as turn caps.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
If you empire has a good 20 cities, generating blissful science and accumulating wealth, each defended by 3 pikemen, you would have been ok in Civ2. In civ3, your neighbour may ally the whole world against you and ride in an army of 30 knights! Goodbye cities!

Correction. Let's take this scenario: I have 20 cities, blissfully generating science, defended by pikemen. Well, actually they're defended by 2 musketmen and 1 cannon each, but same idea.

Then the Babylonians declare war on me, for no obvious reason. (I swear I never posted on their boards) The Babylonians bring the Zulu into an Alliance against me. The Zulu bring the Iroquois. The Iroquois bring the French. In just two turns.

Now I have two options:

A) Bend over, grab my ankles and hope they use lubricant. (Well, not really, since the AI won't really send knights against me, it will send hordes of obsolete archers and stuff.)

B) Bring the whole continent to the party.

So I choose B. I contact the Russians and offer some money if they'll join me against the Babylonians. The Russians bring the English against the Babylonians. Those Babylonian armies are already starting to turn around. The Babylonians bring the Zulu against the English, too. The English bring the French against the Zulu. (Even though France is still also part of an alliance against me, which includes the Zulu.) The Zulu bring Russia against the French. Russia brings Germany against the French AND the original Babylonians in two consecutive turns.

Soon the whole continent is fighting each other, instead of fighting me. None of my cities is even remotely in danger. (There may be one or two bowmen per turn actually headed my way, but that's all.)

Try it. It works every single time. The AI's just itching to get into an alliance against someone, works just as well in your favour, not only against you.

Meanwhile, just out of sheer boredom I wipe out the Zulu AND take half of the Iroquois and Babylonian teritories with only minimal losses. I could take all of the Iroquois, but wth, I'm already having too much corruption so I accept a peace. I do however make a point of hunting down every single Zulu re-spawned capital, until they stay wiped out.

The Germans, however, don't know when to finish, so they wipe out the Babylonians for me. Since newly conquered cities have no culture, I rush-buy cathedrals and universities all around them, and in a couple dozen turns they start deffecting to me without a fight. Nice. Thanks, Germany. (Well, not really, since they only bring more corruption.)

As a result of that screwed up World War, somehow Russia, England and France end up fighting each other, even though they started as allies. They never know when to stop, and Russia expands way out of hand, pushing England and France into small corners of the map. I end up dumping a steady supply of gold and resources into both England and France, just to keep them fighting the Russians. (Not that I needed to, but I'm bored and have more gold than I need for science.)

So, well, it looks to me like I never really was in more danger than in Civ 2.

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
And Nadexander even mentions how difficult he finds overseas conquest... isn't this a challenge really?

Not difficult. Just pointless. Lots of micromanagement in hauling crap loads of units (assuming i am lacking a single source of aluminum, rubber, or oil in my entire continent which isnt all that unlikely. This is btw, not much of a disadvantage. 2 cavalry are just as effective as 1 tank when backed up by proper artillery. Actually longbowmen would do if you had enough artillery.) across 20 sea squares and following them around with ships without the help of any kind of stack movement. Then proceed to pound the AI's cities to under size 6, flatten all the defenders and roll in. Wow now i have a completly useless city that even after growing and devloping will give me 1 shield and 1 gold. So i rush build a temple to keep it from revolting, a harbor to bring in the luxeries, and a barracks to heal my troops. Move on to the next city. Lather rinse repeat. Now i got a bunch of cities that are damn useless. Either i raze them and take home a bunch of slaves or i start selling them to the highest bidder. Nothing worth taking nor keeping. Just cut it up into a bunch of pieces to stunt growth. Give away cities to other civs in a fragmented manner so that they all just keep fighting each other and can never bother you again. cant colonize cause colonies are wothless. cant subjegate cause they have nothing to give. They wont have anything to give until you give them back theyre cities. But once you give them back they wont have a reason to give you anything. the diplomatic model doesnt let you stipulate any kind interesting peace deals. So were back to square one. When your ahead you either destroy the AI (literally raze all their cities) or you wait for them to catch up. No other options? I thought that was one of the points of civ3: that you would have an option besides warfare for getting ahead. I guess not.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Moraelin


Actually, think of it this way: I'm at a point where ANY science spending between 30% and 100% gives me exactly the same results. Whether I'm researching space flight, or going back to discover monarchy which I've missed the first time around, I still can't get under 4 turns.

On one hand, this means that I have more money than I can spend, since upping the science over 30% doesn't help much. (And more realistically, I could drop it to 20% and still stay ahead of the competition quite comfortably.)

On the other hand, it means I don't really need to stay a democracy, either. I could just as well go Monarchy and have less unit support costs, less war weariness, and military police to keep the population happy. Or I could go the Communist way and also get to be able to build anything in those far off cities, without rushing production.

I'm just saying that hard-coded limits are a lame solution. E.g., off the top of my head:

1) There's already a piece of code that makes it cheaper do discover something, if everyone else has it. Make the effect more so. If everyone else in the world knows how to make iron swords, chances are I don't need many turns to figure it out too. (And it should be based on HOW FAR behind you are, too, if it isn't already. E.g., once one or more nations are already in the modern times, everyone else should have an easier time finishing discovering the rest of their ancient technologies.)

2) Make science alliances possible. Two backwards countries could join their forces to throw their combined science output at a single discovery. So if I dominate half the world and everyone else is still in the stone ages, they could do that to catch up. (The disadvantage being that both of you get it that tech, AND you'd automatically trade all techs when you sign the alliance. So it's not something you'd want to do when you're the only nation in the lead, but may come in handy when you're both far behind.)

3) Make the science production scale somewhat less linear. I.e., 100% science spending shouldn't give me exactly twice the advancement speed of 50% spending, and much less than 5 times the speed of only 20% spending. There's only so much that you can rush science.

4) It should become much easier to discover a technology, once you've won a fight against a unit based on that technology. I.e., if I don't have "The Wheel" and successfully defend against chariots, I might learn something in the process. (That's very roughly speaking how the Egyptians got chariots in real history, and also how the Romans got to have a fleet. Well, not exactly. But it could be approximated like that in the game, since supporting the actual historical circumstances would be well beyond the scope of a Civ game.)

And so on. There are TONS of ways to prevent an absolute scientific lead, without something as heavy handed as turn caps.

While I do agree that a rigid cap isn't the most elegant solution, the choices -except no. 3- you present would only serve to accelerate the rate of discoveries made by the player and the AI.

Number 3 looks nice, but it would come down to something strikingly similar to the 4-turn cap we have now -and the principle behind implementing it is the same.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Moraelin

Soon the whole continent is fighting each other, instead of fighting me. None of my cities is even remotely in danger. (There may be one or two bowmen per turn actually headed my way, but that's all.)

Try it. It works every single time. The AI's just itching to get into an alliance against someone, works just as well in your favour, not only against you.

Well this little story looks nice and all, but it doesn't really prove anything. I could just point out that you'd be lost without the help of your allies. What if there were no others nearby? What if your neighbours would not ally with you? What if their demands were unreasonable?

In the very least, you were forced to take action, whereas in Civ2 you could sit tight and do nothing, expecting perhaps a few isolated units to kill themselves attacking your cities.

I maintain that there is more of a challenge to Civ3 than to Civ2. It may still be easy in various ways (too easy to make allies, maybe), but it's an improvement.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Nadexander


Not difficult. Just pointless. Lots of micromanagement in hauling crap loads of units (assuming i am lacking a single source of aluminum, rubber, or oil in my entire continent which isnt all that unlikely. This is btw, not much of a disadvantage. 2 cavalry are just as effective as 1 tank when backed up by proper artillery. Actually longbowmen would do if you had enough artillery.) across 20 sea squares and following them around with ships without the help of any kind of stack movement. Then proceed to pound the AI's cities to under size 6, flatten all the defenders and roll in. Wow now i have a completly useless city that even after growing and devloping will give me 1 shield and 1 gold. So i rush build a temple to keep it from revolting, a harbor to bring in the luxeries, and a barracks to heal my troops. Move on to the next city. Lather rinse repeat. Now i got a bunch of cities that are damn useless. Either i raze them and take home a bunch of slaves or i start selling them to the highest bidder. Nothing worth taking nor keeping. Just cut it up into a bunch of pieces to stunt growth. Give away cities to other civs in a fragmented manner so that they all just keep fighting each other and can never bother you again. cant colonize cause colonies are wothless. cant subjegate cause they have nothing to give. They wont have anything to give until you give them back theyre cities. But once you give them back they wont have a reason to give you anything. the diplomatic model doesnt let you stipulate any kind interesting peace deals. So were back to square one. When your ahead you either destroy the AI (literally raze all their cities) or you wait for them to catch up. No other options? I thought that was one of the points of civ3: that you would have an option besides warfare for getting ahead. I guess not.

What *would* you have wanted? Rewards for your conquest? Wouldn't that just make the whole deal easier, and wouldn't the massive increase in wealth be equally meaningless as you were obviously already far ahead of your opponents?

[rid102]

I think Nadexander has a fair point.

What *would* you have wanted? Rewards for your conquest? Wouldn't that just make the whole deal easier, and wouldn't the massive increase in wealth be equally meaningless as you were obviously already far ahead of your opponents?

Well normally, you do fight wars for rewards don't you? A war is not really worth fighting if there's nothing to be gained from it (unless your vindictive and/or just like attrition).

Massive increase in wealth is not meaningless, it's devalued but is not meaningless.

I don't see why the player shouldn't be rewarded by making some aspects easier if they've attained certain acheivements. E.g. have "historical events" like Wonders except you don't build them, you acheive them. Say something like Magellan is given to the Civ who has mapped the most sea tiles by the time Navigation is discovered (or similar) and have juxtapopsed "historic event" conditions to make it very difficult to get all.

Otherwise what real point is there if you're never going to have any tangible rewards to chase?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


While I do agree that a rigid cap isn't the most elegant solution, the choices -except no. 3- you present would only serve to accelerate the rate of discoveries made by the player and the AI.

Number 3 looks nice, but it would come down to something strikingly similar to the 4-turn cap we have now -and the principle behind implementing it is the same.

Not at all. The cap is like a barrier : you can put 20 % or 100 %, it's just the same. What Moraelin propose is a CURVE. 100 % would give MORE than 20 %. Just not a plain linear x5. I don't know if this would work in the game, but the idea is interesting.

Moraelin, I suggest you to post these ideas in the "Desires For Future Civ3 Patches (A thread saving thread)" if you do not already did it. It would be a waste to have these ideas kept lost in this thread.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by rid102
I think Nadexander has a fair point.



Well normally, you do fight wars for rewards don't you? A war is not really worth fighting if there's nothing to be gained from it (unless your vindictive and/or just like attrition).

Massive increase in wealth is not meaningless, it's devalued but is not meaningless.

I don't see why the player shouldn't be rewarded by making some aspects easier if they've attained certain acheivements. E.g. have "historical events" like Wonders except you don't build them, you acheive them. Say something like Magellan is given to the Civ who has mapped the most sea tiles by the time Navigation is discovered (or similar) and have juxtapopsed "historic event" conditions to make it very difficult to get all.

Otherwise what real point is there if you're never going to have any tangible rewards to chase?

Oh but there are rewards already. The enemy is squished! Their culture lost. You get either a 'mediocre' city (with territory and means of culturally taking more -which adds massively to your score) or a lot of workers, bare terrain on which to found a new city of your own, some cash, and maybe more on the negotiating table.

So a conquest is far from meaningless... while it does not yield benefits that will catapult you to Godlike status at the same time.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Not at all. The cap is like a barrier : you can put 20 % or 100 %, it's just the same. What Moraelin propose is a CURVE. 100 % would give MORE than 20 %. Just not a plain linear x5. I don't know if this would work in the game, but the idea is interesting.

Moraelin, I suggest you to post these ideas in the "Desires For Future Civ3 Patches (A thread saving thread)" if you do not already did it. It would be a waste to have these ideas kept lost in this thread.

I understood what he meant. My point is that this would result in a game situation that is very similar to the one we have now.

[Moraelin]

No. The whole idea isn't that it becomes anything near what we have now. The idea isn't to accelerate it for everyone, but to make it hard to stay ahead. And, yes, to replace the abrupt caps that you can plan around, with curves that aren't as black and white. The idea is that even if you're ahead, you'd need every single coin you can squeeze into scientiffic reasearch. Why?

- Because numbers 1 and 4 mean you'd be dragging everyone with you. E.g., per number 4, once I send tanks against someone, they might get the idea to make their own tanks, and maybe even make them better. (The sole reason Germany took tanks seriously in WW2 was because in WW1 they had their rear handed to them by tanks.) Sure, they wouldn't get the technology immediately, but they might get 50% off on researching the required technologies.

Any tech superiority would be short lived. Sure, you may have some 20-50 turns where you own a technology alone. Maybe 100 if you're really far ahead of your time. Then everyone would catch up. It would be impossible to be making spaceships while the rest of the world is in the stone age. So you'd permanently need to struggle to stay ahead.

- Because number 2 is not something you'd want to do when you're in the lead anyway, since in that situation you'd just be giving technology away for free. You'd be just creating a country that's exactly as advanced as you are, and which might betray and attack you with that technology. On the other hand, if you're a small country with nothing to lose, and it's just a matter of time before you're conquered by the Big Brother, you might try finding a few other doomed countries and try to catch up together.

- Because number 3 brings in a non-linearity in the curve. You COULD go for researching something in only 3 turns instead of 4, but it's going to take a MASSIVE financial effort to do so. Are you willing to make it, for an extra turn of being ahead, or are your money better used elsewhere? It's something that needs a strategic decision, instead of "Oh, I've reached the cap anyway, I have no choice but to reduce science spending."

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Well this little story looks nice and all, but it doesn't really prove anything. I could just point out that you'd be lost without the help of your allies. What if there were no others nearby? What if your neighbours would not ally with you? What if their demands were unreasonable?

Yes, I would very well be lost without the help of my allies, but the point is that there'll always be someone willing to ally with you. And then there'll always be someone else willing to ally with them. And so on.

I'm not talking making allies with my old friends the Russians, whom I've traded with for ever. I'm talking about "ugh... I there's some country called Russia at the other end of the continent, that some scout told me about 1000 years ago. I think they have two heads and sacrifice small babies to Satan, or some such. Let's see if they want to be allies with me."

Mind you, I'm not really saying it's a step back from Civ 2, or anything. And indeed, after the patch the AI will send 60 units on one city, so ANY defense will eventually crumble if you just sit and wait. The first time I had a war after the patch, and saw those huge stacks charging my cities for the first time, I lost half a dozen cities before I even got my own units moving. And I've seen some massive landings, Normandy style, on one tip of the continent while I'm fighting elsewhere. Nice. I like the post-patch AI a lot more ever since.

Just that, well, after taking the initial sucker-punch you figure out how it works, and it's not THAT much more difficult. I doubt that I would get the same sucker punch a second time.

It also becomes a lot easier in the late game, so it doesn't really reduce the boredom when you're at the top. I mean, ok, in the early game just moving around is a problem. But once I have 100+ workers and railroads everywhere, I just have some tanks fortified somewhere and can quickly move them to intercept those stacks of archers before they get anywhere NEAR my cities. E.g., in that Normandy style invasion, even though I had like 5 stacks of a dozen units each converging on one city, none of them actually got anywhere near that city. I didn't even use tanks, I brought a dozen Cossacs that I still had from a previous war. Zero turns to move them by rail, and they made mincemeat out of the warriors and spearmen and bowmen that the AI was sending.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


I understood what he meant. My point is that this would result in a game situation that is very similar to the one we have now.

No.
Actually, it just means nothing to improve the science rate once you are at 4 turns for a tech. WIth a curve, it would still accelerate the research, just not as much. The situation would be different. I know that there is times I just want to get a tech, no matter how much it cost to me.