P*ss and moan about a great game

[bobbo008]

this is a great game, but several things really bother me:

corruption
corruption is too high because of distance from the capital. at one point, the british empire was 1/4 the land area on earth. that's 1/5 of the world being one shield cities. not realistic. corruption from distance from capital should be reduced especially for expansionist civs... hey, thats a good idea.

everything naval.
It has never taken 100 years to cross any ocean. Submarines are not invisible, when I have one in another civs waters and they're still in the middle ages, why do they still ask me to leave?
I have Privateers set with attack of 3 and defense of 1, and galleys with one each. No matter what, if I attack them, they attack me when I'm fortified, they've always won (at least the 20 or so times i've had this matchup). There is no way those numbers work.
Galleys taking away a hitpoint or even two from a battleship? These are arrows flying at it! At minimum the battleship could just go right THROUGH the galley. this goes along with spearmen and tanks.

Right of Passage
you don't have it, so why move into my territory every turn, when every turn i just ask you to move?

random resource placement
there are two large continents on a huge map. There is no oil on one of them. great, several hours wasted.

enemy settlers
other civs do not need to fill up the holes in my empire for me, so maybe the primary purpose of other civs should be something else, maybe cultural advancement.

AI wars
It would be fine by me if two other civs fight without me being involved somehow

no city trading
I know this was brought up before, but to get one city from the AI, I'll have to offer roughly 15 good cities.

air units
Fighters only have a range of 6 or whatever it is, but in one turn they can rebase to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean halfway around the globe.
bombers cant sink ships. if this were really true, Pearl Harbor would have been a devestating attack leaving "battleships badly damaged but now immune to enemy aircraft"

[fittstim]

the corruption, naval and air moans are easily corrected with the editor.

the rights of passage and settler moans are part of the game's strategy - annoying though they might be.

the random resource moan is also a part of the game (trading and not making war with your oil supplier unless you have the means to take the civ out) which can, if you want, be solved with a scenario which places oil on every continent or by upping the appearance of resouces through the editor.

finally, your No City Trading moan really irks me. please tell me which freaking countries in the world trade cities? it's not realistic. some countries (UK, US) take over cities/areas and then "lease" them for 99 or so years. but that's not city trading. this is a stupid moan.

[bobbo008]

the naval one is not, as I'm talking about attack/defensive values appearing to not work as they should.

I think for resources, there should be some sort of flag that makes sure there is a resource in a certain area/landmass.

Canada and the United States have traded territory, look at the map, you know that straight border? It wasn't always straight. Morocco would also love to take Spanish cities on its coast, which it has requested since its independance. They do that, besides the US and UK, as you've mentioned.

And since you want to b*tch about realism, who as a tank as big as a city? who has a dozen houses in a city of several thousand?

edit: Gibraltar: Britain and Spain.

[alva]

random resource placement
there are two large continents on a huge map. There is no oil on one of them. great, several hours wasted.

1. Alternative reality
2. even in this reality, oil is almost done with, better start to get used to it

I had a game like this too, i tought it was good fun, forced me to alter my gameplan completely.

[Zachriel]

Re: P*ss and moan about a great game

Originally posted by bobbo008
this is a great game, but several things really bother me:

corruption
corruption is too high because of distance from the capital. at one point, the british empire was 1/4 the land area on earth. that's 1/5 of the world being one shield cities. not realistic. corruption from distance from capital should be reduced especially for expansionist civs... hey, thats a good idea.

Historically, British colonies didn't produce shields. They produced luxury and strategic resources. The Caribbean exported sugar. China exported tea. Africa exported slaves. South America exported silver. If a colonialist wanted a manufactured good, such as textiles, he had to pay to have it shipped from England.

[Nubclear]

Re: Re: P*ss and moan about a great game

Originally posted by Zachriel


Historically, British colonies didn't produce shields. They produced luxury and strategic resources. The Caribbean exported sugar. China exported tea. Africa exported slaves. South America exported silver. If a colonialist wanted a manufactured good, such as textiles, he had to pay to have it shipped from England.

Alright, its still not fun

I always played with corruption off in my games.

[Action]

Is Chicago less corrupt than Seattle becuase it is closer to Washington?

Lets face it, the corruption model is horrible and should be completely re done for Civ 4.

Yes, We can work around it, yes it is needed for game balance, but my god it is terrible.

[bobbo008]

"even in this reality, oil is almost done with, better start to get used to it"

in the real world, there aren't some two alternative power solutions, and no other methods to build tanks or other military options.

"I had a game like this too, i tought it was good fun, forced me to alter my gameplan completely."

Assaulting their tanks/infantry/battleships is not too fun with cavalry, galleons and ironclads just to attempt to gain access to oil.

"Historically, British colonies didn't produce shields. They produced luxury and strategic resources. The Caribbean exported sugar. China exported tea. Africa exported slaves. South America exported silver. If a colonialist wanted a manufactured good, such as textiles, he had to pay to have it shipped from England."

yes, many resources. only several in the game. therefore, in the game, england should not be expansionist if the reason for it in real life isn't in the game. Let's not forget about gold, which is lost to corruption, thus making the gold rushes of california and alaska pointless.

"I always played with corruption off in my games."

thank you

"Is Chicago less corrupt than Seattle becuase it is closer to Washington? Lets face it, the corruption model is horrible and should be completely re done for Civ 4. Yes, We can work around it, yes it is needed for game balance, but my god it is terrible."

thank you

corruption should go to almost none or "communal" in modern times with the advent of instant communication. I don't see why they made this so bad in the first place when they did game testing.

I think Chicago is more corrupt than Seattle, too...

[Lord_Davinator]

umm... you can use the chicago versus seattle argument in a democracy... but I think its pretty realistic with monarchy and even communism... even with a republic in the ancient era.

[Dis]

yep, these are the same things that have been bothering us for the last 13 months. Don't expect these features to go anywhere soon, or ever. They are part of the game.

[notyoueither]

The randomness of the map can screw you. It can be overcome in SP. MP remains to be seen. I doubt it.

I think standard maps will be the key with MP, but then that is the case with Civ 2, is it not?

[Pyrodrew]

I've always agreed with the too slow navy & excessive distance corruption/waste. At least Police were given anti-corruption. As for distance corruption/waste needed for game balance... it hurts the AI more than the human player. Some may claim it is needed to keep the strong from getting stronger, but that doesn't hold much weight when compared to my biggest complaint in Civ3... the AI always fears the strong and leaves them alone. I applaud Soren for the AI's aggression against the weakest, yet without the AI ever trying to stop the superpower Civ who has "too large of a lead" such as with a balance of power, the AI gets lost (& eventually loses) in it's short-term world. Lack of this element is also a very good reason why games can get boring later... in the beginning you have competition!

A minor flaw with the AI is when the AI declares war against you during your turn... that's just stupid. Don't slap me for a duel when I have the gun.

Right of Passage
you don't have it, so why move into my territory every turn, when every turn i just ask you to move?

You may know this, but if you assemble a wall made of units across the thinnest part of your territory the AI will not enter your territory anymore (unless it considers you weak) simply because it cannot reach point B through your territory due to your "unit wall" (of spearman, workers, whatever). Although this is more costly to develop if your territory has "no thin parts" & you may already know all this... but I've found it great in many cases & if I can help but 1 lurker my job is done.

I had a game like this too, i tought it was good fun, forced me to alter my gameplan completely.

Assaulting their tanks/infantry/battleships is not too fun with cavalry, galleons and ironclads just to attempt to gain access to oil.

I agree with Notyoueither here.

enemy settlers
other civs do not need to fill up the holes in my empire for me

I do it to the AI sometimes, as well as other anti-friendly border tactics the AI does not do/notice, but a human may consider grounds for war. I just adjust to my opponent.
The "unit wall" works great to prevent this as well.

AI wars
It would be fine by me if two other civs fight without me being involved somehow

Others have mentioned that they've seen AI wars without them involved. However, I believe a pattern has been noticed that all the AI Civs seem to mimic the human player's peaceful or warlike nature (which ever it may be) too much, regardless if it is Gandhi or Genghis Khan. Therefore, peaceful builders can have thousands of years of world peace (boring for some).

[Willem]

Re: P*ss and moan about a great game

Originally posted by bobbo008
this is a great game, but several things really bother me:

corruption
corruption is too high because of distance from the capital. at one point, the british empire was 1/4 the land area on earth. that's 1/5 of the world being one shield cities. not realistic. corruption from distance from capital should be reduced especially for expansionist civs... hey, thats a good idea.

The game does come with an editor you know. If you don't like the rules, you can change them.

It has never taken 100 years to cross any ocean.

And again with the editor

I have Privateers set with attack of 3 and defense of 1, and galleys with one each. No matter what, if I attack them, they attack me when I'm fortified, they've always won (at least the 20 or so times i've had this matchup). There is no way those numbers work.

And again

Galleys taking away a hitpoint or even two from a battleship? These are arrows flying at it! At minimum the battleship could just go right THROUGH the galley. this goes along with spearmen and tanks.

It seems to me that a couple of guys in an inflatable raft managed to do some pretty serious damage to the USS Cole a short while back.

Right of Passage
you don't have it, so why move into my territory every turn, when every turn i just ask you to move?

You probably don't have a strong enough military. If I'm able to kick some serious butt with a civ, they rarely come into my territory.

random resource placement
there are two large continents on a huge map. There is no oil on one of them. great, several hours wasted.

Again with the editor.

enemy settlers
other civs do not need to fill up the holes in my empire for me, so maybe the primary purpose of other civs should be something else, maybe cultural advancement.

Build up your culture in the area and assimilate them. Free cities!
You can out build the AI any day!

AI wars
It would be fine by me if two other civs fight without me being involved somehow

You are playing Civ III right? I see that happening all the time.

no city trading
I know this was brought up before, but to get one city from the AI, I'll have to offer roughly 15 good cities.

At first it was possible to do this, but many players found a loophole to exploit it. It's just a way to prevent the game from being to easy. Not to mention that most civs wouldn't give up a city very easily. About the only time it ever happened is when a nation was being severely beaten in a war.

air units
Fighters only have a range of 6 or whatever it is, but in one turn they can rebase to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean halfway around the globe.

You can change the range in the editor.

bombers cant sink ships. if this were really true, Pearl Harbor would have been a devestating attack leaving "battleships badly damaged but now immune to enemy aircraft"

Bombers can't sink ships! In fact there's no lethal bombardment at all in the default game. If you have that ability, you're playing with a mod. Oh yes, that's in the editor too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Action
Is Chicago less corrupt than Seattle becuase it is closer to Washington?

Lets face it, the corruption model is horrible and should be completely re done for Civ 4.

First, it's a game and a mere appoximation. More specifically, on a standard map, Chicago is less than 10 tiles away from Washington (less than 10% of a 100-tile map). Let's look at a typical example:



During this game (GOTM5), the Americans started far to the east on this continent, and expanded west (sound familiar?). Chicago is 11 squares west of Washington. Here is the production in 110 AD:



Commerce is 87%. Production is 75%. Corrution and waste are quite manageable, especially considering the poor location of the capital. Meanwhile, just like the historical Americans, Lincoln moved the capital to a more central location in New York. (In history, of course, it was moved from Philadelphia to the then centrally located city of Washington.)

Finally, do not let the semantics of the word "corruption" confuse you. This just represents the percentage of production which is not readily available to the central planners in the capital (you!). This could be due to traditional corruption, but also waste, inefficiency, local resistance to federal control, or other factors beyond your control.

Manifest Destiny

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm5/

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
More specifically, on a standard map, Chicago is less than 10 tiles away from Washington (less than 10% of a 100-tile map).

Addendum: Chicago is 696 miles from Washington, or less than 3% of the globe's circumference. On a 100-tile map, they would be right next to each other. Los Angeles is 2754 miles from Washington, or about 11% of the world's circumference. On a 100-tile map, that would be about 11 tiles away. Also, it is assumed that the United States has already built a Forbidden Palace, so Los Angeles is probably not 11 tiles from the nearest capital.

http://www.usatourist.com/english/tips/distances.html