How great is 1.29 at solving prior issues?

[Tuberski]

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.

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?

If I were Civ D, I would fight C or E, absorb them, yake B or F, then I have the power to fight Civ A.

[Pyrodrew]

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.

If I were Civ D, I would fight C or E, absorb them, yake B or F, then I have the power to fight Civ A.

That's a bit over confident. What *exactly* do you think Civ A is doing while you (Civ D) are fighting Civ E? Even IF you defeat Civ E the time it takes you to do so will be equal or longer than it takes for Civ A to defeat any of the other Civs. And Civ A will more likely be successful given it's far greater power.

Stage 2:

Civ A is attacking Civ F (Civ A>Civ F & more likely to win)
Civ B is attacking Civ C (Civ B>Civ C & probably will win)
Civ D is attacking Civ E (Civ D = Civ E)

Guess what the outcome will be?

This is often the mistake I see the AI Civs do... they fight their petty wars among themselves while letting Civ A continues to grow. Heck, both of you replied with the same comment (one of you could be Civ D & the other Civ E)... but truth is only 1 of you would win.

I wouldn't want to risk a fight with A

If you are a neighbor with Civ A as you suggest, then Distance Corruption makes you a *prime target* for Civ A to continue his growth... only difference is Civ A now gets the advantage of surprise by you leaving him alone.

[Pyrodrew]

I would much rather absorb E and, consequently, have more resources and cities to control for the big finally later on.

Keep in mind this is in the late Industrial Age or Modern Age... time is running out & the big finale will be decided soon.

[Cyclotron]

Re: Balance

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Civ2 Jungles were a challenge, not Civ3.

No way. Civ2 jungles held me up like a wall made of rice paper. Add fruit to that, and they were almost good to have around. With enough settlers, in Civ2 I;d rather have jungles than grassland.

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 want a certain part of the game to be about fate... it's called environmental determinism. Even so, I like the bad starts because when I get them it forces me to play at my best to win.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Tuberski


If I were Civ D, I would fight C or E, absorb them, yake B or F, then I have the power to fight Civ A.

Remember, civ A IS a human player, it won't let "you" (the comp) build your cities and let you grow to be a threat. Yes, if you'd be civ D and all of them would be comps even A, then, you could win by absorbing all the small ones and building yourself big enough to strike A, because AI will let you survive and grow if you kiss its ass.

[tinyp3nis]

Yes, jungles are major pain in the butt in civ 3. Takes for ever to cut them down, and before you do they are good for nothing I can't remember exactly how they were in civ 2, but couldn't have been as bad as civ 3. The difference between grasslands and jungles is very unbalanced, oh well good think civ 3 is SP only.

[Pyrodrew]

Civ2 jungles held me up like a wall made of rice paper. Add fruit to that, and they were almost good to have around. With enough settlers, in Civ2 I;d rather have jungles than grassland.

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.

I want a certain part of the game to be about fate... it's called environmental determinism. Even so, I like the bad starts because when I get them it forces me to play at my best to win.

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).

[vondrack]

Reading the discussion about civs A, B, C, D, and E, I am rather surprised than nobody objected the initial premise. Out of my experience, the current leader often is the target of multiciv coalitions. I can't even remember how many players complained of being ganged upon ("human vs. rest of the world" problem), while in fact it was just a case of the rest of the world ganging upon the current leader.

It is rather cheap to think up an A-B-C-D-E situation and demonstrate how pitiful for D is to fight E instead of teaming with B-C-E and jumping on A. Very often, the geographic distribution of the empires simply does not allow anything like that. You can quite successfully wage war with your neighbour, but you are severely limited in fighting a civ halway around the globe. I am deliberately not drawing examples from the real world, because they are not appropriate here. Real world logic should not be applied to the game, as the game has its own rules and implied logic. For example: acquiring new cities far away from the productive core means wasting efforts... while taking some from your neighbour actually adds to your economic strength. Going to war with the most powerful civ would be the destructive way of playing the game. If I can't win, let he/she can't either. As I understand it, the AIs are currently programmed to play constructively, they try to win the game, not just stop others from winning it - which is the right thing, IMHO.

Besides, as others correctly pointed out, blind ganging would be pretty unrealistic and in most cases, suicidal. Organizing a broad effective coalition against the most powerful civ in the game takes a lot more than what AI can currently offer. It takes a human... you will have to wait for MP!

Regarding the unopposed spaceship launch... keep in mind that you need a spy to know how far has the SS construction progressed... No spy, no intelligence, no opposition...

[HazieDaVampire]

ok, let me just get a picture here, they actualy had somthing in civ2 called Bananas?
So is that where we get the abstain/banana thing?

[tinyp3nis]

Reading the discussion about civs A, B, C, D, and E, I am rather surprised than nobody objected the initial premise. Out of my experience, the current leader often is the target of multiciv coalitions. I can't even remember how many players complained of being ganged upon ("human vs. rest of the world" problem), while in fact it was just a case of the rest of the world ganging upon the current leader.

If you are big, they like you less but Pyrodrew was quite right about it being ineffective, they do not posses a real threat, you can ass kiss your way out of lot of things. Even make them fight eachother if you want, and many times they will without your help. If they DO gang on a human, it's just coincidence or one needs to be more of a "brown noser". Would the ganging (_on the human when he is big_) be good thing, is for you people to think about but it does not exist civ 3 yet.

It is rather cheap to think up an A-B-C-D-E situation and demonstrate how pitiful for D is to fight E instead of teaming with B-C-E and jumping on A. Very often, the geographic distribution of the empires simply does not allow anything like that.

I for one think this comparison was pretty much how it is in the game, accurate and has the point in it. The fact that sometimes there are situations where AI is not in a place where it could provide to a war does NOT mean the AI is aware of that, it is not. In my games my neighbours don't gang on me anymore than the civs around the globe. If I'm at war with a civ next to me it's a pity the AI don't have more sense choosing it's allies vs me.

[WarpStorm]

The strange thing is this balance of power was purposefully removed. Too many people complained that the AI always ganged on the leader in their previous games (I used to like hide out as number 2 in SMAC till it was too late for them to do anything about my eventual win), so they made Civ3 not act that way. I guess you can't please everyone.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
ok, let me just get a picture here, they actualy had somthing in civ2 called Bananas?
So is that where we get the abstain/banana thing?

I am not sure what they are refering to, but civ2 has a tile that can have bananas on it.
They may be making a reference to banana republics.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The strange thing is this balance of power was purposefully removed. Too many people complained that the AI always ganged on the leader in their previous games (I used to like hide out as number 2 in SMAC till it was too late for them to do anything about my eventual win), so they made Civ3 not act that way. I guess you can't please everyone.

Civ 3 gangbangs could be pretty ugly, considering the fact that in civ 3 comps use their troops much better than in civ2 / smac.

[Chronus]

Keep in mind this is in the late Industrial Age or Modern Age... time is running out & the big finale will be decided soon.

Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking that late in the game . . . though depending on circumstances, I may still hold to what I said earlier.

I also didn't realize we were talking about human players (as in multiplayer). But again, I suspect the issue may come down to confidence and control. 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.

Consequently, 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.

Very often, the geographic distribution of the empires simply does not allow anything like that. You can quite successfully wage war with your neighbour, but you are severely limited in fighting a civ halway around the globe.

Agreed.

Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Chronus


Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking that late in the game . . . though depending on circumstances, I may still hold to what I said earlier.

I also didn't realize we were talking about human players (as in multiplayer). But again, I suspect the issue may come down to confidence and control. 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.

Consequently, 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.



Agreed.

Hey, I have an idea on how we can solve this debate! Let's all go out, buy PTW and play against each other!

Nono, actually this is still about Single player.