Announcement

**vondrack** · October 25, 2002, 09:49

Re: How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
1.Navy was often irrelevant & V-E-R-Y S--L--O--W;
2.Some air units were useless (helicopter, paratroopers, etc.);
3.HUGE HUGE advantages to war (to many to list) unlike peace;
4.Once you became the largest/strongest civilization you could cavalry/tank steamroll over all others while increasing your power at the same time. I could even do this as a Democracy;

No changes with respect to these, AFAIK.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
5.The AI Civs did not care to try to win the game, they were only interested in good trade deals...
example: Babylons would let me finish my Spaceship in peace (letting me win) if I met their demand for free Ivory!!! No Civ would ever try to stop me from winning when the end was near.

I am not quite sure if this is correct, I have had some pretty thin & hard-earned victories here. Anyway, no changes either.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
6.ANY Civ. starting in the Jungle automatically meant they were doomed. Civilizations in the Grasslands were often destined to be the future powerhouses.
7.NO BANANAS!!!!!!

No changes. Actually, how would you like to fix the jungle problem? Still no bananas, oh, well...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
8.The AI would spend precious time/money researching/buying useless techs (often dead-end techs) it did not need.

I can't agree with this... dunno if it is because of the patch or what, but I hardly ever notice AIs wasting resources on useless techs. Also, it is rather difficult to say which techs are really useless... I sometimes go for Printing Press only because noone else does... and then trade it around to catch up... I don't think it's because of the patch, but I would say that the AIs research and trade quite fine.

**Pyrodrew** · October 25, 2002, 10:21

Actually, how would you like to fix the jungle problem?

In Civ2, Jungles were no paradise to start in, but in Civ3 Jungles are suicide since they removed Bananas (growth) & replaced it with Disease (population loss). They should remove Disease & put Bananas back, like Civ2... or at least make the Jungle Civs develop an immunity to Disease over time. Since Jungles are typically near the center of the map they often become the areas other Civs plan to grow (especially due to Distance Corruption). When a Jungle Civ is discovered it often is only a matter of time until other Civs divide up the pie & devour it. Jungle Civs need something more to give them a fair shot.

hardly ever notice AIs wasting resources on useless techs.

That sounds good! Before the AI would be willing to pay a king's bounty for a dead-end tech that already had it's greatwonder produced. Another example is a Civ that has been a warmonger forever, why spend time researching (or paying tons of $ for) a tech to get democracy when it could be advancing further in weapon technology. Nevertheless, it sounds like this has been solved/improved... so I'm excited.

**Tassadar500** · October 25, 2002, 10:44

IMO what you listed arent bugs there just a thing in CivIII. So if you change those you change the game.

**Dominae** · October 25, 2002, 11:02

Re: How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
1.Navy was often irrelevant & V-E-R-Y S--L--O--W;
2.Some air units were useless (helicopter, paratroopers, etc.);

You can mod both of these in the editor to make them better. If you don't like modding yourself, there are plenty of good ones out there.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
3.HUGE HUGE advantages to war (to many to list) unlike peace;

This is a difficult balance to achieve. My personal preference is making war slightly stronger because it makes the game more interesting. That said, when you're ahead you can definitely play a peaceful game to great success (though you might have to go to war to get there).

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
4.Once you became the largest/strongest civilization you could cavalry/tank steamroll over all others while increasing your power at the same time. I could even do this as a Democracy;

In any game, if you're clearly ahead, then you're going to steamroll over the opponents (one kind of implies the other, no?). It is true that, in the end, very boring tactics will win games (i.e. mass-produce Cavalry), but getting to the point where you can freely employ those tactics is the real difficulty.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
5.The AI Civs did not care to try to win the game, they were only interested in good trade deals...
example: Babylons would let me finish my Spaceship in peace (letting me win) if I met their demand for free Ivory!!! No Civ would ever try to stop me from winning when the end was near.

Again, had the AI been coded the other way, a large subset of players would have complained: "why doesn't the AI try to win rather than prevent me from winning?". Admittedly some decisions the AI makes with respect to the end-game are clearly "stupid", but then again, if they're powerful enough their stupid decisions won't matter so much. The AI was designed to be powerful, not focused. Most human players are the exact opposite.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
6.ANY Civ. starting in the Jungle automatically meant they were doomed. Civilizations in the Grasslands were often destined to be the future powerhouses.

Yeah, this is annoying, but what do you expect? I can see no solution to this problem other than putting all the jungle tiles on islands far away from the civs. Or I suppose you could just eliminate Jungles entirely.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
7.NO BANANAS!!!!!!

Bah, I don't like bananas, and can't imagine a fledgeling economy blossomming because of the things. But that's just me...

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
8.The AI would spend precious time/money researching/buying useless techs (often dead-end techs) it did not need.

I agree with you here. You also have to take into account, however, that the techs are considered useless by human players need still be researched by the AI for gameplay purposes. If the human player or the AI never researched Advanced Flight, why put it into the game? The trick is to make every tech useful, not teach the AI which ones are optimal.

In general, the point of my comments is that the problems you have with the game are not clearly problems with the game itself. The AI does have its quirks, but I think I've showed that altering it isn't a simple matter of writing a patch. Some of the "problems" may never change because they're not technically "problems".

Dominae

**Pyrodrew** · October 25, 2002, 11:03

what you listed arent bugs there just a thing in CivIII. So if you change those you change the game.

Err... that's why I didn't call them bugs.
And if those things were changed they change the game for the better, IMO.

**Alex** · October 25, 2002, 11:05

You're out of luck, I fear.

**Pyrodrew** · October 25, 2002, 11:27

You can mod both of these in the editor to make them better. If you don't like modding yourself, there are plenty of good ones out there.

Ok... I was just curious if Firaxis did anything to this (they did speed up the privateer).

My personal preference is making war slightly stronger

I like war too... I just wish peace had better temptations for me.

In any game, if you're clearly ahead, then you're going to steamroll over the opponents (one kind of implies the other, no?).

Not necessarily. I was always hoping for a balance of power...

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

"had the AI been coded the other way, a large subset of players would have complained: "why doesn't the AI try to win rather than prevent me from winning?"

If Civ A is 10 days from launching a spaceship & other Civs do not have any spaceship technology, then stopping Civ A is those Civs trying to win. A simple if x < 10 would do, no?

Bah, I don't like bananas

Blasphemy!

Some of the "problems" may never change because they're not technically "problems".

Most of what I listed were common issues brought up elsewhere & earlier often brought up in threads last time I visited. I used issues/problems since I knew some may feel some items were not problems.

**vmxa1** · October 25, 2002, 12:14

Not sure what is meant by #5, but I have had the AI launch wars at me with less than 5 turns to go and they had only one city. So does that mean that do not want me to win or is it just a fluke?

**WarpStorm** · October 25, 2002, 12:15

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

Not necessarily. I was always hoping for a balance of power...

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

This is a myth and not at all realistic. Look at the real world. The third world nations are not banding together to take out the powerhouse countries. They are engaged in petty border disputes amongst themselves. In your words, futile. But that's real life and not a game.

**Cyclotron** · October 25, 2002, 13:39

I like how jungles are terrible starting positions. It makes starting a challenge sometimes. Besides, not all places that civs start should be perfect... triumph over adversity, anyone?

**Pyrodrew** · October 25, 2002, 20:52

Balance

This is a myth and not at all realistic. Look at the real world. The third world nations are not banding together to take out the powerhouse countries. They are engaged in petty border disputes amongst themselves. In your words, futile. But that's real life and not a game.

Ironic, considering your application of the real world to this game is an unrealistic myth. The real world does NOT END with God deciding the victor once someone launches a Spaceship or controls x% of land. This allows countries to fight over petty disputes as there is no defined end. If there was an end game victory condition in real life, things would play out VERY different! In the real world there is NO clear preassigned time the world ends... in Civ3 there is!

I like how jungles are terrible starting positions. It makes starting a challenge sometimes. Besides, not all places that civs start should be perfect... triumph over adversity, anyone?

Civ2 Jungles were a challenge, not Civ3. Some terrible start positions are fine, but when 99% of all Jungle start positions decide the AI civilization's destiny as failure then it's no longer about good triumph, but fate. I guess they could have made Jungles even worse & Grasslands even better... that way the entire game would be decided on where you start.

Why make start positions less balanced if you do not have to?

**WarpStorm** · October 25, 2002, 21:06

Re: Balance

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
If there was an end game victory condition in real life, things would play out VERY different! In the real world there is NO END TIME the game ends...

Go on believing that while I win the game

**Pyrodrew** · October 25, 2002, 21:11

Go on believing that while I win the game

So in your mind, what time in real life will the entire world end & a civilization be declared a victor? It's around modern age now, so it must be soon...

Hint: I was not talk about *your* Civ3 game there, I was talking about the 'game of real life'.

**Chronus** · October 25, 2002, 21:42

Civ A = Power 10
Civ B = Power 4
Civ C = Power 2
Civ D = Power 2
Civ E = Power 2
Civ F = Power 3

Modern Age... you are Civ A... you steamroll... you win... heck you can even get other weaker Civs to help you or cause a fight between 2 weaker Civs. A balance of power would make the weaker Civs realize that they must team up (obtain a Power >10) against Civ A if they wish to try to win in the Modern Age. Civ D dedicating all it's efforts to fight Civ E is futile.

I have to agree with warpstorm to a certain degree. If I'm civ D, and my only two neighbors were A and E, then I wouldn't want to risk a fight with A. I would much rather absorb E and, consequently, have more resources and cities to control for the big finally later on.

Announcement

How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment