BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[rah]

After all his chest thumping, he got bronze from a hut and still quit the game. Most people would romp and stomp after luck like that. Not Eyes, he just continued to complain then quit, using his complaining as an excuse instead of the fact that he was getting thumped.

NEWB

[EyesOfNight]

At no point did Soren or any Civ4 designer that i'm aware of claim to be trying to add RTS elements. They were simplifying the game intentionally - because it was too complex, and unapproachable for new players (as you seem to be aware from the rest of your post, which makes sense.)

Actually they did want to add in RTS elements, and in fact on the original Civ4 box they describe it as such. Also, I was told by beta testers that they wanted to bring in more RTS players. So that statement is just simply not true. All you have to do is look at how they designed the game to see what they were going for. If you can't see that, there's not much left to say to you.
Also, it was clearly not too complex and unapproachable for new players as Civ2 sold millions. This idea of simplifying because people can't handle complexity is part of the reason for the decline in PC game sales. We aren't a bunch of drooling idiots.

Now, this does sound like a RTS (or a tactical simulator, even more so). It also is probably at least marginally moddable. I'm not sure you can mod it so only one unit can occupy a square; but you certainly could mod in "land transports", at a minimum (simple, using XML), and using Python I suspect you could give them a variable attack strength based on their contents. It's quite possible you could use Python to prevent a unit from occupying a tile that has N number of units on it [you'd use the trigger of moving the unit, and test if the target tile is a legal target, and refuse if too many units are on that tile; you could also create a promotion or promotion sequence allowing more units on same tile].

Moreso, though, if you think about ways you could accomplish the key goal without quite so drastic of a change, it's quite possible IMO.

The key goal of #1 is "increase the importance of tactics in combat". You could accomplish that by increasing collateral damage (or giving it to EVERY unit); by increasing the bonuses to 'counter' units like the spearman to mounted units; or by playing around with how 'defender' and 'attacker' are chosen. See Dale's combat mod for some of the possibilities here.

Why are you talking about modding? Do I look like an SP player to you? Do you honestly believe modding is the key to MP? If you are trying to tell me to mod the game and then use it in MP I would appreciate you not post in this thread anymore as you are absolutely clueless of the effects of mods on MP communities. Also, increasing collateral damage is about the worst idea I have ever seen. In fact, the collateral damage idea was poorly thought out which is why you often end up with catapult wars that are a matter of who attacks first. I would completely remove collateral damage from the game, but I won't bother explaining to you how as you don't seem to understand the game very well.

Why such hatred for slavery? Do you hate it for what it is, or simply for the fact that it's an 'only choice' for players? If you hate it for what it is, I can't help you, as it's probably going to be in Civ forever. However, if you hate it for the fact that it's an only choice (ie, too powerful such that if you don't use it you lose out), then that can be addressed.

Population supporting military units is not unreasonable, and in fact a more effective way to do this is to take advantage of the "free support" Civ has built in. Unit and Military Unit support gives you "free support" for a certain amount of units, mostly based on your population (0.24*pop + difficulty level bonus; or 0.12*pop + vassalage bonus for mil units). Simply drastically increase the military unit cost so that it's very hard to play with any non-free military units - and there you go. 20gp per military unit. Let's see if you have any military units beyond your free ones now...

Of course the big drain here is on 'losing' civs. If you lose a city, say 10 pop, you just lost some military units also... realistic, but not necessarily good for game play.

Why are you asking me if I hate slavery? Where have I said I hate slavery? Have you read this thread at all? If you can't be bothered to read what we've been talking about then don't post. It's really that simple. Also, why would I increase the military cost of units? Again, you clearly don't understand what that would do. I'm not trying to hamper players and handicap them even more with an even more stringent maintinence system. I'm trying to make it so that economy fuels military and the players that grow and expand the fastest will be able to field the largest militaries. Your final point is just ridiculous in that you feel that losing a city should not result in losing units. Since they decreased the total number of cities, the importance of a city should be increased and that means the loss of units for the loss of a city.

This is simple to mod in [the specific example you give, and the general idea].

I'm sorry, why are you talking about mods again? Did you bother to read the thread?

The one thing I'll comment on, is that your suggestions all really tend towards RTS games in their focus. One of the thing that the Civ4 designers must balance is Builders vs Warlords vs Diplomats. Civ4 is not and never has been a combat-oriented game; it has combat, and certainly it is expected that you not only be ready for combat but at some point in nearly every game you will engage in combat; but at its heart it is not supposed to be primarily about the combat.

I'm sorry, what is so RTS about increasing the importance of buildings, increasing the complexity and options in stacks, and removing the simplicity of simply making a massive stack and moving it from point A to point B? Have you even played an RTS before? I have, and I was top 5 in the US for it.

Your suggestions above all make combat more tactical, and more portions of the game (i.e. buildings) relevant to combat, but I would not say that they significantly improve the game for Builders or Diplomats; and in a sense they make the game very much more about combat.

I'm pretty sure I said this is just one small part of what I would change. You haven't heard about the rest. Also, last I checked, in MP no one wins by simply building buildings and winning on score. This may come as a ground breaking surprise to you, but the MP players here make up like .01% of the total MP players playing on gamespy. The 99.9% of players on gamespy all play one way and that is very military focused.

[Provost Harrison]

Top 5 for RTS in the US now? You should focus on some real accomplishments at some point

[EyesOfNight]

I am. Unfortunately I don't have 12K sitting around at the moment.

[Ming]

EON... some good points.

I really like your thoughts on balancing economy and armies. Granted, the current balance is based on research. If you put too much to fielding a big army, your science rate/economy suffers, and eventually, superior units will prevail.

However, your thoughts on tying the number of available units to the available population is a sound one. I also like your thoughts on limiting stack size. I too would like to see "fronts" as in real life. The fact that they removed ZOC's and a stack of 20 units can move past your stack without any combat is just plain crap.

Keep up the good ideas... and I hope somebody listens.

[Arrian]

I haven't been following BtS's development for some time, but generally speaking a slight nerf to slavery is probably a good idea. We'll see.

As for Eyes... I wonder, if the game sucks so much, why the hell do you keep talking about it?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Can I make a thread about anything non-Civ related I want in the Civ 4 forum, Ming?

[EyesOfNight]

I really like your thoughts on balancing economy and armies. Granted, the current balance is based on research. If you put too much to fielding a big army, your science rate/economy suffers, and eventually, superior units will prevail.

The tech system in Civ4 is broken. I would completely retool the tech system and add in a bunch of new techs that would offer more. You can have almost no tech rate and still keep up because techs get cheaper as someone else researches them. Also, if you try to go down one path too far too fast then it penalizes you way too heavily. What you end up with is a system that forces you to follow the same path as everyone else and allows players behind in tech to catch up very easily. You should never reward poor play, and Civ4 does that in multiple areas.

[Arrian]

Only if you're Eyes. He's special

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Also, if you try to go down one path too far too fast then it penalizes you way too heavily.

You should never reward poor play, and Civ4 does that in multiple areas.

Seems contradictory to me.

-Arrian

[Ming]

I think one of the primary problems is that like every other Civ game to date, IV was designed as a SP game. Considering that's the heart of the market, it's no surprise. It was not designed as an MP game. If it was, we might be having an entirely different discussion.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can I make a thread about anything non-Civ related I want in the Civ 4 forum, Ming?

No...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Only if you're Eyes. He's special

What an interestingly vague statement! Short Bus special? Or are we talking about some other kind of special?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
No...

Then I know it is well within your power to move this to the proper spot.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then I know it is well within your power to move this to the proper spot.

Actually... we have cut this thread some slack for the same reason that EON posted it here in the first place.

Many of the past Civ IV players no longer post in the Civ IV forum. He wanted a bigger discussion than what might have been possible in the on topic forum... and looking at the views and responses... he seemed to have been right.

So... a few ground rules.
If all you are going to post is non related crap... don't bother.

EON's... lighten up on the insults a tad
People attacking EON... lighten up as well.

TO ALL... continue the topic of the discussion.

THANK YOU!