Registering my Disgust...

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ahhh, no worries there bud....(I would tell you that I actually missed work on the day it came out cos I was up all night playing it, but....on the off-chance that my boss reads this...nahhh...I really WAS sick that day!)

I'm enjoying it very much, and when you get a bit, mosey over to the strategy section, where we've been busily dissecting your latest creation....trying to come up with (hopefully innovative) ways of controlling the undercurrent of the game, in addition to puzzing out the best ways of dealing with cultural reversion and other roadblocks you guys have put in our path...good discussions so far!

Oh....a question for you re: the Prima v. Hurrican Games thing. How long does Prima's exclusivity last??? I'm asking cos I'm working on my own strat guide, but the last thing I want is a horde of corporate lawyer types trying ti p*ss in my cornflakes....

-=Vel=-

Vel,

I really don't know much about the whole Prima/HG thing other that what I've gathered from emails from the guy over at HurricaneGaming, which is to say, he got smacked down but quick and he wasn't looking for a fight so he dropped it.

I would think that at least some of the issuen had to do with the fact that he was selling the guide, but I really don't know... If I can get any clarification on it, I'll definitely let you know.

Dan

[habadacus]

OK now that I've spewed my venom, and recieved a speedy reply from a member of firaxis, let me clarify my point a little. I'm fine with culture being a concern in disputed borderlands. I like everything about the trade and diplomacy model (except that I could stroke it to win, which as was mentioned can be turned off, and I can promise you that and culture victory was unchecked soon after installation). I'm not having any trouble per se difficulty wise with my conquest, My unproductive cities aren't hindering my military expansion, or detracting much from my primary economy. It's just very silly to conquer all these cities via a fair fight hard won and have them be utterly, totally, completely useless forever despite heavy investments in structures that claim to do something they absolutely don't. It's not fair, it doesn't make sense to my mind and most troublesome its neither rewarding or fun, two big factors in my enjoyment of previous Civs. If the intention of the designers were to try something new, don't let your marketing department coerce into using the tried and true Civ name. Call it Culturization or some such. I question whether taking the cities by culture would be any different in terms of corruption. I'm certain that it's less satisfying in terms of gameplay, to just get a popup that says "Bully for you, now you have this city of fickle ingrates for free".

Now have clarified my gripe let me I enjoy the game over all except for the punishing corruption that has no means control. Again I ask: How specifically can I tweak the game to lower corruption. What do I need to do? I don't want to remove culture values from building, and I don't need to remove req. to build units so I don't have to trade as Dan, generously mentioned. I can handle all that stuff. I can't handle not bieng able to build a sodding barracks on the other side on my continent. ANY HELP again GREATLY APPRECIATED

[Venger]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
Civilization III was not designed to be "just" a wargame. We've been saying this for months.

That's great - I don't think he claimed it to be "just" a wargame. However, war is intrinsically important to history and hence Civ.

That said, if you disagree with the role of culture and diplomacy, it is entirely within your power to remove them using the editor.

We have problems with the implementation that are impossible for us to change. City reversion shouldnt evaporate units in that city (and frankly likely shouldnt happen much at all). Can I change that? Nope. I want to be able to have non-aggression treaties. Can I change that?

The editor isn't a fixall.

Go in and remove all culture values from buildings so you won't have to worry about that.

How about a "culture influence" button in the game option startup you can select/de-select that does this?

Remove resource prereqs from the units and you'll probably never have to trade for anything except technology again.

Okay...we're back to the "editor" line - editing should be used to customize the game, not fix it. And many consider the problems with both resources/distribution/effect and cultural defection (ESPECIALLY REVERSION AND LOSS OF UNITS) to be core components that just don't work. Why are we editing Civ3 back to Civ2?

We obviously can't design a game that pleases everyone simultaneously, but you have the tools necessary to radically alter the game if parts of it disagree with you.

Kind of a giveup, no? Can I add units to the game? Add governments? Add much of anything?

The editor allows some changes, but is far from the fixall the game needs at it's core.

Venger
P.S. Don't hate me all that much, I just bought SMAC and having read the patches and info I'll be really enjoying this Firaxis title... thought the talking planet has to go!

[habadacus]

Cool, Thanks Akka!

You read into my point precisely, and gave me exactly the grain of info I needed. Much thanks. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go roll over those haughty Aztecs with my new Tanks. I'll try to tweak the settings for my next game, assuming it won't affect a game in progress. In the meantime the civilization formerly known as Romans can wallow on their side of the continent in their waste and corruption. If they think they're ever getting a Library or Coluseum out of this supreme ruler, they've got another thing coming.

[Velociryx]

::nods:: Thanks man! I'd appreciate any additional info/updates you might come across....and in the meantime, I'll get back to doing what I like best of all....figuring out a) What makes this game tick, and b) how to make my civs hum like nobody's business....

-=Vel=-

[Venger]

Originally posted by wapamingo
"because the AI won't talk to you, so your Democracy will fall... "

I actually had a war while a democracy for 500 odd years. I had all luxuries (mostly traded for them), all my cities had marketplaces, my luxury rate was 20%. NO city ever went into dissorder (well maybe once). I had a police station and Womans Suffarage (I played Regent Level, Huge map, 16 civs, I was pretty big as well). No problem. I actually thought it would be and was hoping the war would not last long...but opportunity arose (fall of an allied capital that contained 4 wonders...of course I had to race and "liberate" it from the enemy). But it was not a problem. The war went on for a long time...and just recently another war stared with my old time allies and biggest rivals. I stopped playing that game b/c of tromendous turn wait.

500 years or 500 turns? I have had the government fall THREE FREAKING TIMES - the last time I said screw it and edited the game so Democracy has Republics war weariness.

I had the highest approval rating, loads of luxuries (6), 40% luxuries, police stations, etc. etc. etc. It didn't matter. Trust me on this one, there is NOTHING you are gonna do to prevent this from happening, and without being able to simply "declare peace" the game screws you into the collapse.

I agree that corruption is a problem. But so what.

It detracts from the game, has no basis in common sense, and makes the game less enjoyable.

Afterall: Its just anothe chalange for you to beat.

Unplugging the monitor also presents a challenge. I'd prefer a challenging AI instead.

Besides: The computer suffers from the same problem.

Actually, it doesn't, because it has no ability to use the workarounds I do. I want a sane, level playing field. Additionally, the AI will never conquer the world, because it's not programmed to.

Venger

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by Venger
If you want to build an empire, go boot Civ2 again.

I hardly remember building an empire in civ2. I remember building howitzers and moving them in the general direction of my opponent. Exactly where is the "building" or the "empire" in that?

The word you are looking for is "suffer". Conquering an empire is tedious and unrewarding in this game. Wait till you actually try taking a city on another continent - get ready for 1 shield regardless of what you do. Oh, and you'll never be able to be at peace, because the AI won't talk to you, so your Democracy will fall...
I can cut my lawn with scissors. Why would I want to? Civ3 is the same way - tedious and unrewarding for anything but the utterly easy and devoid of fun UN/Spaceship/Culture win.

First, If you are willing to play on a huge map then you are asking for tedium no matter what the game play is like (not to mention 10 minute waits between turns).
Second, in civ3 warfare is the dominant force in the game. Far and away the single most effective way to get ahead is to conquer your enemies, no matter which actual victory condition you are shooting for. It seems like you are complaining that the actual victory condition of ruling the world is boring. This is because the whole end game is boring! Once you get beyond a certain point (usually fairly early in the game) there is no longer anything the AI can do to stop your concentrated efforts. Military expansion is pretty much the only viable strategy, and a brutally effective one against inferior AI tactics. Once you expand to a certain point then momentum kicks in. From then on, how you finish the game is a trivial matter.
Third, the very idea of a cov conquering every city on earth within 6000 years borders on the preposterous. The more realistic the game is the less likely this should be possible.
Fourth, desiring that every game end with you in control of every last city on earth is completely childish. There is no challenge in that. There is nothing interesting about it. No problems left to solve. No challenges to be met. All loose ends neatly tied up. This is exactly what civ doesnt need. There should be a struggle from the very first turn to the very last, not a superficial battle that ends in a forgone conclusion.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Nadexander

I hardly remember building an empire in civ2. I remember building howitzers and moving them in the general direction of my opponent. Exactly where is the "building" or the "empire" in that?

Did you play on Deity level, huge map? Because if you did, the enemy would have stealth bombers, entrenched Mech Inf, and howitzers of it's own, and wouldn't hesitate to come after you.

That said, the bombardment feature of Civ3 makes howitzers much more apropos - would you have felt it better if they'd renamed Howitzers to Tank Divisions?

First, If you are willing to play on a huge map then you are asking for tedium no matter what the game play is like (not to mention 10 minute waits between turns).

I play on a large map, 8 civs. And there is ZERO reason to expect tedium, I play the large map because otherwise it is WAY too easy to kick the AI's ying yang.

Second, in civ3 warfare is the dominant force in the game. Far and away the single most effective way to get ahead is to conquer your enemies, no matter which actual victory condition you are shooting for.

But try this on a large map with any ocean. Get ready for your democracy to fall and useless conquered cities.

It seems like you are complaining that the actual victory condition of ruling the world is boring. This is because the whole end game is boring! Once you get beyond a certain point (usually fairly early in the game) there is no longer anything the AI can do to stop your concentrated efforts. Military expansion is pretty much the only viable strategy, and a brutally effective one against inferior AI tactics. Once you expand to a certain point then momentum kicks in. From then on, how you finish the game is a trivial matter.

Can't argue with any of that...

Third, the very idea of a cov conquering every city on earth within 6000 years borders on the preposterous. The more realistic the game is the less likely this should be possible.

Why is this so? Mortality is the single greatest cause of the end of empires - great rulers give way to weak ones. That said, numerous empires have covered the known world - Rome, the Moors, Greece, etc. Most of the "earth conquest" occurs in the late game, when it's much more reasonable to have an empire with global vision.

I wouldn't be opposed to making earthwide rule impossible IF there was another challenging and enjoyable way to win the game. There isn't.

Fourth, desiring that every game end with you in control of every last city on earth is completely childish. There is no challenge in that. There is nothing interesting about it. No problems left to solve. No challenges to be met. All loose ends neatly tied up. This is exactly what civ doesnt need. There should be a struggle from the very first turn to the very last, not a superficial battle that ends in a forgone conclusion.

I agree, though I think that's a function of the implementation than the concept.

Venger

[Xentropy]

Venger, based on the TYPE of game you like to play, have you tried huge map, 3 enemy civs, deity level? They should have enough room to grow in such a situation that things are slightly more difficult on the military victory front, which is the only way you like to play.

You've probably already tried it... just curious how it turn(ed/s) out...

[Venger]

I STILL have not finished my very first game. Large map, 8 Civs... I have about 8 turns left before I conquer the earth - the map is in some other threads...

I don't like only 3 other Civs - I like the variety and dynamics of multiple Civs.

Usually, in Civ2, by the late game you are down to about 5 Civs. And once you start kicking it, they all gang up. Sort of like fighting one big Civ...

Venger

[David Murray]

Re: Registering my Disgust...

Originally posted by habadacus
Alexander want to do it. Ceasar wanted to do it. Napoleon wanted to do it Hitler wanted to do it.

Yes. They WANTED to do it. But did any of them ever manage it?

As Brain (Pinky and the...) would tell you, taking over the world isn't easy.

[Thomas Paine]

~ narf ~

[habadacus]

Well, I took Dan's advice, increase optimal cities, incresaed (doubled in fact) optimal % for cities in my current difficulty, flagged banks and barracks as reducing corruption, and made military academy act as Forbiden Palace. IT DIDN"T DO A THING. My cities are still completely useless. I have a small island with a few towns not far off the coast from my capitol that weren't conquerd, they were started ages ago that for no apparent reason only produce 1shield/1gold. Am I the only one that thinks this is completely ludicrous? OK maybe I cant own EVERY city on the map, but I'm not even covering 1/4 of the map. Why is there all this land if I can't build on it? I'm an EXPANSIONIST Civ for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously telling me the way to reduce corruption is to raze cities and not build hospitals? Kinda counter-intuitive, that. Or to not conquer other civs and win by culture? Well, thinking I actually had the choice I turned those off, now I'm faced with the prospect of only ending the game after I capture Metropolis after Metropolis each producing less than the square where by first settler dropped his rucksack in 4000BC. Come on Firaxis this is just plain weak.
With the time I'm saving by not playing the game I'm working on my Civ 3 emulator. Here's how it works: Take an oridinary pocket calculator. Hit [+2=] 10 times in a row. Every 8 times you hit = add two to the number you punch in. Continue until you hit 100000. Congratulations, you've won an astounding cultural victory!!!

P.S. I'm also working on a multiplayer patch, so you can race with the guy next to you to see who can add up to 100000 quickest!

[Harm]

Thats odd, because I made my police stations and barracks anti-corruption and it turned cities on islands all the way across the world from 1 shield to 4-5 shield cities. They are small in size but now I expect them to be able to produce things from time to time.

This is prepatch as well.

[napalm010]

habadacus

It looks like u have found the right spots to affect the corruption problems( # of optimal cities/optimal % of cities). But from what u said about doubling the optimal % of cities, I dont think u are understanding their exact effects. The following is from the Civ3Edit help file.

Percentage of Optimal Cities

Determines what percentage of the optimal number of cities setting (found on the world sizes page) is actually optimal on the selected difficulty level. If this value is 100%, the optimal number of cities will be equal to the default setting for the given world size. At 50%, the optimal number of cities is halved. At 200%, the optimal number of cities is doubled. This value will not match the value on the World Sizes page exactly because the corruption setting of the player's government type is also a modifier.


Optimal Number of Cities (World Size Properties)

Determines the optimal number of cities before rampant corruption occurs. If a player exceeds this number of cities, corruption dramatically increases, regardless of how far away from the capital a city is. Setting this value higher reduces the effects of corruption; lower values increase them. Default is 16.


The optimal Number of cities is the big factor in having cities with 1 shield output no matter what the size. It is different # for each size map. On a standard map the default is I believe 16. Not sure anymore as mine is edited already. This means any cities past 16 total will have 1-2 shield output max no matter what u do.

The Percentage of Optimal Cities only affects the Optimal Number of Cities (World Size Properties) according to diffucility level. For example:

Optimal Number of Cities (World Size Properties) = 100
Percentage of Optimal Cities = 90%
Any cities over 90 in this example will have 1-2 shield output max. No matter what the corruption settings are in goverment rules OR what corruption reducing city improvements u build in those cities.

I have drastically raised the Optimal Number of Cities (World Size Properties) and no longer have cities with 1-2 shield only output. Playing Earth Standard scenario on warlord diffucility. Main civ in asia. But even cities in south america have some output. It started around 50% corruption in those cities. Once courthouse was built it is now around 4 lost out of 16 total. Which i feel is quite reasonable.

Hope this helps u. It made my game of Civ3 much more enjoyable. The AI civs actually go for very large civs. And Wars against those large civs are much harder. But in my opinion a lot more fun. Be careful about cultural takeover though. U have to get those cities culture improvements very fast or they will depose your civ and go back to former civ. Especially when that far from your palace.