Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Chronus
    Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!
    Would that solve the debate? It would if all players are equal, but if one if much better or much worse, the question will still be open. It would settle whom was better in that group, though.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pyrodrew
      Exactly, especially when the jungle terrain was laid out nice! Now remove your bananas & poison your jungle suddenly you do not have a fair adequate start position.
      Exactly! Sarcasm aside, its not supposed to be a great start location. I thought it was pretty silly that it ever was in Civ2.

      Exactly, as mentioned some terrible start positions are fine. Yet Civ3 Jungles went to an unnecessary extreme making starting terrain play an even larger role in a Civ's success. In Civ2 starting in a Jungle *might* be good... in Civ3 it is always bad (thus less variety in acceptable starting positions).
      I have won many, many games where I started in a jungle and still won quite handily. Besides, jungles have great late game resources that I am quite glad to have around.
      Lime roots and treachery!
      "Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten

      Comment


      • #33
        depending on circumstances, I may still hold to what I said earlier.
        True it does depend on the circumstances, but those circumstances would have to be rare for me.

        To have the cities of Civ D and Civ E under one player (who's also a good player) is more threatening than the two civs being ruled by seperate players.
        I'm curious as to how many human players would rather absorb the smaller civ instead of an outright multi-civ attack on the big civ simply because they feel they can handle the resources better than that other "dumb" human player.
        Civs who are not the top dog conquering "dumb" or weak Civs is usually good, except near the end of the game.
        But more importantly, to increase one's odds of winning one must attack (not necessarily thru war/battle, but at least through economics, culture, politics, & other means to) those who are stronger to stop their growth, lest the gap between Civ A & the weaker Civs widens. CivD cannot compete effectively against Civ A in terms of growth, so Civ D should find ways to stop Civ A's growth or better yet find ways to impact failure & decline to Civ A.

        "It is not enough that I succeed, everyone else must fail." - Atilla the Hun

        its not supposed to be a great start location. I thought it was pretty silly that it ever was in Civ2.
        Add fruit to that, and they were almost good to have around.
        I never said Civ3 Jungles had to be "great start locations" & you are the 1st person I've seen to claim most Civ2 Jungle starting positions were "great start locations" which seems to contradict your earlier statement that "they were almost good to have around". At one moment they are "great" & another "almost good enough to have around"... are you just trying to argue to argue?

        jungles have great late game resources that I am quite glad to have around.
        Jungles in the middle of the map laced with great late game resources is like pouring blood on a wounded sheep in the middle of a pack of lions (who had great early game resources) - same story every time.

        Comment


        • #34
          Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!
          Ok... but only if cyclotron7 gets to start in his beloved Jungles.
          Last edited by Pyrodrew; October 27, 2002, 00:48.

          Comment


          • #35
            Well, I saw most of you talking about how the AIs should make an effective coalition to be able to vainquish the player and "win".

            I find it very saddening to see how the "win factor" seems to always be overpriced while the "immersion factor" seems to be completely forgotten.
            In real world, the USA does not start to invade Mexico and Canada while the second-ranks nations gang-bang it to prevent it to "win".
            Some will argue there is no "win" in the real world. I will argue that I enjoy much more to develop a credible system of diplomacy, and have friends, enemies, mount a coalition or a trade network between them, etc., rather than just choosing which will be my next target to absorb.
            In other words, in total opposition with the thread starter, I would like the IA to focus much more on acting realistically rather than trying to "win the game" or at least to "make the player loose". Perhaps that the game would be easier, but I prefer a easy immersive game that give me the feeling to rewrite the history, rather than a challenging game which mechanisms are much too obvious and which is totally not immersive because the AI leaders does not feel like people but just bots which will only consider the score and not the REAL priorities of REAL leaders.

            Ok, I was probably somehow unclear, I've often trouble to word my thoughts in a few sentences, but I hope the main idea was understandable
            Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.

            Comment


            • #36
              In real world, the ....
              I already explained why "in the real world" does not apply, but further add...
              In the real world you cannot live for thousands of years, so you can do 1 turn in the beginning or say 60 at the end, but thats it.
              In the real world most modern leaders cannot SELL a large city to another civilization.
              In the real world natural disasters happen.
              In the real world MPP would not necessarily be displayed for other Civilizations to see.
              In the real world Civ3 is VERY different than the real world.

              I will argue that I enjoy much more to develop a credible system of diplomacy, and have friends, enemies, mount a coalition or a trade network between them
              I would like the IA to focus much more on acting realistically
              Then you should remove all the win options (including historgraph) in the game & play it like SimCity if that's all you want. As for now, there are win goals/targets which strategic competitors enjoy and that should be enhanced, not lost because *some* like to role-play.

              rather than just choosing which will be my next target to absorb.
              Who said it is or should be about just choosing the next target to absorb???

              I prefer a easy immersive game that give me the feeling to rewrite the history, rather than a challenging game which mechanisms are much too obvious and which is totally not immersive because the AI leaders does not feel like people but just bots which will only consider the score and not the REAL priorities of REAL leaders.
              Then what are you doing with Civ3? Every Civ game has always been an immersive game of competition and scoring with defined goals and victory conditions (and as mentioned by someone else, Civ2 had the AI to compete to win) for all the players to strive to achieve and through this new virtual history is written. AI leaders will always feel like bots, regardless how they are programmed. The Civilization series was NEVER a "TheSims" role-playing doll house of historical leaders with no winners/losers. You are looking for a *completely* different game.
              Last edited by Pyrodrew; October 27, 2002, 10:25.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Pyrodrew
                I already explained why "in the real world" does not apply, but further add...
                In the real world you cannot live for thousands of years, so you can do 1 turn in the beginning or say 60 at the end, but thats it.
                In the real world most modern leaders cannot SELL a large city to another civilization.
                In the real world natural disasters happen.
                In the real world MPP would not necessarily be displayed for other Civilizations to see.
                In the real world Civ3 is VERY different than the real world.
                And ?
                Because there is areas which are not realistics, then suddendly the realism factor just become completely irrelevant ?
                Then why not having purple hills with blue trees ? After all, your civ leader is immortal, and it's not realist, THEN you can make galleys with legs as they are not realistic either !
                Tsch, it's not because in some areas you have to give up some realism that it suddendly can be wholefully thrown out of the window.

                Then you should remove all the win options (including historgraph) in the game & play it like SimCity if that's all you want. As for now, there are win goals/targets which strategic competitors enjoy and that should be enhanced, not lost because *some* like to role-play.
                And ?
                The win/goal target are for the PLAYER, they are a way for him to quantify and to measure his achievements, and to have info on the game.
                They have nothing to do with the AI behavior.

                Who said it is or should be about just choosing the next target to absorb???
                Just see the discussion about "country E absorb country D so country A...".

                Then what are you doing with Civ3? Every Civ game has always been an immersive game of competition and scoring with defined goals and victory conditions (and as mentioned by someone else, Civ2 had the AI to compete to win) for all the players to strive to achieve and through this new virtual history is written. AI leaders will always feel like bots, regardless how they are programmed. The Civilization series was NEVER a "TheSims" role-playing doll house of historical leaders with no winners/losers. You are looking for a *completely* different game.
                Seems you completely miss the point.
                I don't see how making the AI feel more humane and less machanical would change the game of Civ3 into The Sims
                In fact, making the AI less mechanical would immerse more the player, because he would have the feeling he is sharing the world with another LEADERS and not another bots. If you think Ai leader will always feel bots, and hence it's not worth to even try to make them simulate better a humane and a little bit more emotionnal behavior, then well, I'm afraid you just don't understand the concept of "immersive" and you mix it up with "addictive".

                And I'm *not* looking for a completely different game than Civ3. I'm looking for an *improved* Civ3 that goes a little deeper than the "me need challenge" and more than in "I want to feel like if I was here".
                Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Yes, the bots should act more like human, and try to win like human. Don't be afraid to admit you like it to be more like sims Vil

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tinyp3nis
                    Yes, the bots should act more like human, and try to win like human. Don't be afraid to admit you like it to be more like sims Vil
                    No, that's the opposite.
                    They should less try to "win", and more try simulate that they rule their nation as a real leader would do it.

                    "winning" is for the player, and the player only. He is the only reason for the game to exist. It's the player that must feel immersed into the game, not the AI.
                    Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Because there is areas which are not realistics, then suddendly the realism factor just become completely irrelevant ?
                      I never said irrelevant. However, the point holds that realism & historical accuracy take 2nd position to the competitive game balance that has existed in all of the Civilization series. This has been stated on this forum many times.

                      Just see the discussion about "country E absorb country D so country A...".
                      1st, I explained why that concept in that example was a bad strategy.
                      2nd, other people have also mentioned how it depends on the circumstances what a player does.
                      3rd, you can win the game as a pacifist & eliminate enemies without ever attacking them.

                      If that quote above is the extent of strategy for you, then you truly are missing out.

                      The win/goal target are for the PLAYER, they are a way for him to quantify and to measure his achievements, and to have info on the game. They have nothing to do with the AI behavior.
                      I don't see how making the AI feel more humane and less machanical would change the game of Civ3 into The Sims
                      If the competition is unaware of the victory conditions then it turns into a "TheSims" role-play. The AI Civs ARE considered "AI players" & Civ3 is a *competitive* game. Likewise, no one would want a football game that the AI player didn't know how to score points or a chess game where the AI didn't know that killing the opponent's King would give victory.

                      If you think Ai leader will always feel bots, and hence it's not worth to even try to make them simulate better a humane and a little bit more emotionnal behavior,
                      AI Leaders will always feel like bots after you play against/with REAL people, but the AI Leaders should be more human in being aware of all the game's victory conditions & achieving those goals. You simply want to sacrafice the competitive aspect that has been throughout the Civilization series to please your need of role-playing... and you will not find much support for that.

                      I'm looking for an *improved* Civ3 that goes a little deeper than the "me need challenge" and more than in "I want to feel like if I was here".
                      You only want a "me need role-play... me Cleo." Thus, I suggest you do 1 of the following...
                      1>Buy PtW & form a clan to role-play with REAL people for the BEST emotional role-play behavior while you all agree there are no victory conditions;
                      2>get a different game... like "TheSims" & look for Historical mods/downloads.
                      Last edited by Pyrodrew; October 27, 2002, 21:33.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        "winning" is for the player, and the player only.
                        And why is this?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Pyrodrew
                          Ok... but only if cyclotron7 gets to start in his beloved Jungles.
                          Agreed. But don't come crying to me when you don't have any rubber or coal.
                          Lime roots and treachery!
                          "Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            New thought:

                            Jungle, in moderation, is VASTLY superior for the human player.
                            The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

                            Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Well, I have been AFK for most of yesterday, so I am a bit late with my response, but still, bear with me, please...

                              I believe that Akka le Vil brought out a VERY interesting point. He described almost perfectly how I try to play Civ and "win" my games. I expand until dominating my continent or conquering land enough to be in a position to win the game "economically" and then just stop, only fighting back if necessary. From that moment on (usually coincides with laying RRs), I just develop my civ, so that all my cities have all kinds of buildings (even if it's not the most effective thing to do), my people love me at 99%, my demo screen shows I am the greatest civ in the world... and because of this intentional slow-down, I usually win in mid-late 1900s with a spaceship launch. And I am perfectly happy with that, since my idea of the world to create is just such an empire... not a military juggernaut swallowing everybody else in the process of building "a better world".

                              I do understand that there are some very effective strategies (like rushes & whipping) and I have already found out winning by domination is perhaps the easiest and fastest way to go... 'cause of leaders and the like. And I do understand that MP will be mostly about war (or, rushing). But damn... that's not fun for me. After centuries of prolonged warfare, my empire is far from "perfect". It is stretched thin, underdeveloped, my people are unhappy... that is not what I want my world to be like. As Akka says, I do want to feel as much in a real world (read: immersed) as possible. Sure, there are unrealistic features... it's a game, after all. But while I am perfectly ready to accept and put up with unrealistic features, I would rather prefer following a realistic approach or realistic principle. Warring from 4000BC till killing the last opponent is definitely a strategy drawn out from fantasy books. There, the good guy fights all the bad guys as long as they are not killed... In the real world, it is not that way. Look at the currently most powerful countries in the world... they did not become powerful because of fighting wars, but because of their economic and development achievements.

                              However, the current Civ3 (its scoring system and victory conditions) directly and indirectly favors warmongering to such an extent, that it is more about annihilation of rival civs than about building your own one. While I do agree that - in the current incarnation of Civ - an improved AI means a more deadly AI, I do not believe that this is the way to go. Which finally brings me to my point (sorry, everybody, I know my posts tend to be very long... I seem to be unable to express my ideas in a breif way).

                              Instead of making the AI more competitive (=more deadly) under the current rules, I would prefer having the very "competition system" reworked, so that peaceful achievements are valued significantly more. Currently, various figures that quite properly evaluate the quality of a civilization (literacy, disease, per capita income) are simply ignored in favour of other figures that sort of evaluate its quantity (area, pop, GNP). What I would love to see is having these taken into consideration to a much greater extent.

                              Let's revise the scoring system and victory conditions in such a way that warmongering is no longer the easiest and most effective way to win the game. I do not say incur direct penalties for waging wars. Wars should stay part of the game. I do not want another Sim game. But increase the rewards and victory chances for peaceful builders, so that their approach to the game is actually viable. Then, we will not need AIs "ganging up" on the current leader for the sole purpose of preventing him/her to win... and the game of Civilization will finally become... eh... more... civilized...

                              Originally posted by Pyrodrew
                              You simply want to sacrifice the competitive aspect that has been throughout the Civilization series to please your need of role-playing... and you will not find much support for that.
                              I believe you are missing the point, Pyrodrew. It is not about taking competition out of the game. It is about toning down the obvious advantages of warmongering. It is about making "the bigger, the better" approach less prevailing. It is about redefining priorities. I am all for competition. But must winning mean killing (almost) everybody else?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I believe you are missing the point, Pyrodrew. It is not about taking competition out of the game. It is about toning down the obvious advantages of warmongering.
                                Did you read my reply to Dominae earlier in this thread about how I would like to be tempted with better peaceful strategy options???

                                If you did you would see we are not in disagreement as I would love for more potent peaceful strategies.
                                Akka & I are discussing something very different... you may wish to re-read some prior posts for better clarification.

                                Comment

                                Working...