Global Catastrophe

[Nym]

Originally posted by Theseus
Then, get creative... think like you are Machiavelli: metagame, geopolitics, massive invasions, economic ruin, leader assassinations (OK, can't do that), you get my meaning. I swear, I sit in business meetings and when people piss me off, I think of them as Bismarck, and craft devious strategies for their ruin. That's fun.

Yes. In my current game for example, playing the Egyptians, I was once in critical situation:

• the Iroquois were my direct neighbors and had cities within my empire (unable to get them through culture flip ),
• Persians were close to me, separated from my empire by about two Iroquois' cities,
• Persians had ROP and MPP with Iroquois and were furious toward me (why? absolutely no idea...).

Then, Babs persuaded Persians to join them in a war against me. . If I just had once counterattacked the Persians to defend myself, I would have been quite surely destroyed by Iroquois. I so tried to:

• involve Aztecs, Persians' neighbours on the other side, in the war against the Persians,
• conclude a MPP with the Iroquois (the idea was to wait Persia attack me, which should probably trigger my MPP with Iroquois and protect me).

and I succeeded!

At the end I was saved, had built a new city where Iroquois destroyed a Persian one, got an old Iroquois city just conquered by the Babs (and then took by me without effort ).

[Jawa Jocky]

I can play the entire modern era in 2-3hours on my PII 450 with 256ram. Stop micromanaging.

1) Automate all of your workers. If your at war you might want a few as army engineers, but telling this idiots what to do every 3 turns wastes a lot of time.

2) Fortify all of your units. If your not at war fortify everything. Of course you can send units to underdefended cities, but fortify them when they get there.

3) Play on SMALL maps and/or w/ more water area. Less cities = less decisions for you and less AI time between turns. I usually play emperor level small map with maximun oceans. The lack of cities actually slows down tech so you end up getting space race victories around 2000 a.d.

[Jaybe]

What!! Play on less than a huge or large map???? NOOOO!!!
Run Away, Run Away!!!

The only time I've played on a standard or smaller map was in the tutorial game. 180x180 huge maps aren't bad. Just 2-5 minutes between turns (16 civs).

JB

[MiloMilo]

Destroyer, that is a looong time to wait between turns. I've got an Athlon 1ghz, 256k ram, and with large maps /12 civs I never have to wait more than 20-30 seconds in the industrial age (admmittedly, I've never played into the modern age, but I'm gonna try this time, I'm really gonna try...)

I suspect that like me, you think a game with 4 civs is incredibly boring. I don't understand peopl who use big maps with few civs. I like to feel like one among many with this game, and I like there to be lots of asymmetrical power balances. But with 16 civs and a huge map things will take very long. So I compromise and play large/12. A trick that has worked for me: use a map with 80% water instead of 70%. 14% fewer cities, 14% fewer units, at least 14% less waiting time.

Another thing I like about lots of civs, and I know this is off topic but whatever, is that you get more competitive games. I'm still mastering Regent level, so I don't want to step up and take disadvantages on monarch, but I do want a competitive game. The more civs, the more comp for resources and especially wonders. People who find the game too easy should think about trying this as an alternative to just pumping up the difficulty slider.

[Catt]

I play on a Dell laptop with PII 450 mz (maybe -- could be 400mz). Only 128 Ram. Huge maps, 16 civs, late modern era, only 3 - 4 minutes between turns when AI is at war. 1-2 minutes when world at peace. (In late game I tend to have governors manage, shift-A just about all workers, and keep units fortified unless in transit).

Weird the variation between systems.

* Back on-topic. *

I would only want random "catastrophes" if they were very mild catastrophes (i.e., lose a couple of pop points, lose a few accumulated shields of production, destroy a tile or two of improvements). Anything much greater would simply add randomness that cannot reasonably be countered with appropriate tactics / strategy.

Bad happenings w/o counter-tactics = frustration, and nothing more.

Catt

[Jaybe]

In addition to global warming, I want general climatic changes, where over a period of time you will have individual tiles change (e.g., where grassland and plains are adjacent, one might change to the other). In a particular area, might happen once in 10 turns or so.

As the world turns, it changes too.

JB

[kring]

Originally posted by Catt

I would only want random "catastrophes" if they were very mild catastrophes (i.e., lose a couple of pop points, lose a few accumulated shields of production, destroy a tile or two of improvements). Anything much greater would simply add randomness that cannot reasonably be countered with appropriate tactics / strategy.

Bad happenings w/o counter-tactics = frustration, and nothing more.

Catt

That would make it more realistic for the posters that say it's not realistic enough. Reminds of AH's Civ board game with the Calamity Cards. Some were tradeable and some weren't.

I agree with you that I wouldn't want it too unbalancing, for either side. I do miss the Civil War from Civ 2, though; made the game more interesting regardless of which civs benefited/lost from it.

One advantage is that typically you are outnumbered at the start of the game, then collectively the other civs would be hit more frequently than your civ.

[planetfall]

Global problems, let's see like firestorms, tornadoes, Godzilla, UFO's, earthquake, etc.

They don't work. SimCity tried all that and it does not cover up either a boring game design or a boring style of play.

Use the editor and forum ideas to reshape your expectations and game experience. For example, last night I played 2 games. But to do that I limited both start time and end time. I loaded a saved game from 2000BC and played until 350BC. Goal was to see how different strategies would play out with the same initial setting. It is amazing how much difference there is in AI play depending on how you play. I don't play vs AI, I play vs me. Win if I do better this time, lose if play lost ground, draw if about the same.

If always winning, increase difficulty level. If always losing, decrease difficulty level or edit the things that bug you about the game. Most of all you don't need 200 workers. The more workers, the slower the game.

[Destroyer]

The default huge map is still very small. I thinks its only 150x150 - TINY by comparison!!!!!!

250 x250 is only available through customising the game. I dont mind my turns taking ages, and i enjoy micromanaging even at this stage.

It takes many hours to find another civ, days if other continents are involved.

I also increase the research modifier to 300%

I like long games!

[Miznia]

Planetfall said:
Global problems, let's see like firestorms, tornadoes, Godzilla, UFO's, earthquake, etc.
They don't work. SimCity tried all that and it does not cover up either a boring game design or a boring style of play.

But Civ is about ALL aspects of maintaining a civ in history. If you leave out disasters, you're sacrificing game depth in favor of the warmonger or the builder. It's not all about that, or it shouldn't be.

Also, as I posted in another thread, a unit that goes exploring into black areas should randomly die, or perhaps mutiny and go barbarian on you.

[Destroyer]

Why do they not work???

Isnt that what scenarios do????

The only thing is you would be determining what happens prior to the scenario.

[Journier]

its odd.... my computers =

1.35ghz athlon
256mb ddr ram
40gb IBM hard drive 7200 rpm
8kha mobo
geforce 2 gts vid card.

and ive NEVER with 16 civ's playing on marla's world map never had over a 1:30 second turn cycle thingie...

It sorta makes me feel good that Im not getting such long delays.


Now when i play on my 500 mhz 192mb ram laptop it takes like
5 minutes with 8 civilizations and a standard- large size map

gl

[Panag]

Originally posted by Journier
its odd.... my computers =

1.35ghz athlon
256mb ddr ram
40gb IBM hard drive 7200 rpm
8kha mobo
geforce 2 gts vid card.

and ive NEVER with 16 civ's playing on marla's world map never had over a 1:30 second turn cycle thingie...

It sorta makes me feel good that Im not getting such long delays.


Now when i play on my 500 mhz 192mb ram laptop it takes like
5 minutes with 8 civilizations and a standard- large size map

gl

hi ,

the ram , its type and the graphics card , ........they can do wonders , ...........or just not , ....

when ya play on a MAC titanium , portable , it rocks , ......

have a nice day

[Destroyer]

How large is Marla's Map?

[Destroyer]

Ah - it is 204x256.

MInes 25% bigger, although I believe its the number of AI units that determines the majority of the length of time a turn takes.

Not sure if the RAM type would make huge difference in time.

Im talking about 5 minute turns in the 1900s onwards.