DESIGN: End Game Options/General Strategy

[kaan]

Originally posted by Solver
However, with the stacked combat system, it's hard to strike the balance. Currently, obviously, warmongers use 12-stacks, which will easily overwhelm a city with 3 or 4 defenders. If, however, we give the cities with 4 defenders an ability to defend against 12-stacks, that will put the warmongers at too big of a disadvantage - their sacrifical of infrastructure will hardly be justified.

How about adding some science bonuses based on percentage of cities with science improvements? That is, you not only get your 10% in city for an Academy, but if 75% of your cities have academies, you get a further science bonus. That's one of the things that could help smaller empires.

I think its a bit radical to empower science structures with defensive bonuses, there are other buildings for that.

[Martin Gühmann]

Solver does not mean if you have a lot of science bonus you get extra defence power in your cities, but he means if you have a high percent of of science buildings you get a science bonus not a defence bonus. Something like a feat, but available for all players and can be lost.

-Martin

[Maquiladora]

Whats to stop the bigger empire building the same buildings in 75% of their cities and getting the bonus too? Yeah theyve got to build the Academies in more cities but its still easy for both.

Theres also the matter of building high cost units and disbanding them in low production cities to speed important builds in the queue, small empires wont have this luxury.

Everyone plays the builder-defensive at some time, in the vanilla game i play it all the time until i know ive got a scientific lead on my opponent, then i attack.

[Solver]

Whats to stop the bigger empire building the same buildings in 75% of their cities and getting the bonus too? Yeah theyve got to build the Academies in more cities but its still easy for both.

Bigger empires are usually warmongers who build units, not buildings.

[Martin Gühmann]

Year Solver is right if you build a lot of units you cannot build a lot of buildings, too. And vice versa. Therefore my builder strategy needs so long first I like to build a lot of cities and equip them with every building and wonder that is in the build options, of course also the empire needs to be equipped with tile improvements, once everything is finished room is in the build queues for units and that might be the case in the modern age or in unmodded CTP2 in the future, when everything is invented.

-Martin

[Maquiladora]

Bigger empires are usually warmongers who build units, not buildings.

The difference between a "builder" and a "warmonger" in CtP2 is a matter of aggression not strategy.

Year Solver is right if you build a lot of units you cannot build a lot of buildings, too.

This is not true, while one city equips itself another city builds units, then they switch.

[Maquiladora]

Also buildings in CtP2 are not critical, like in CtP1 for example. I can go without Academies for a long time, afterall whats the use in building an Academy for a 10% boost in science, when most of my cities only produce 40 science? The builder and the warmonger (if they knew what they were doing) would both choose to switchh instead to unit or PW generating.

[Solver]

Then, making buildings such as Academies have a bigger bonus can also be viable.

[Maquiladora]

That would just make the warmonger build academies too, the advantages for the builder need to be entirely seperate from the warmonger.

Perhaps in the warmonger governments units are supported by gold or a portion from commerce, that would hinder science. To make up for this lowering of science in that government, give them a special military unit.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
The difference between a "builder" and a "warmonger" in CtP2 is a matter of aggression not strategy.

I talk about these strategies in general not only in CTP2.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
This is not true, while one city equips itself another city builds units, then they switch.

But this strategy still needs more time to fully equip all cities.

-Martin

[Maquiladora]

But this strategy still needs more time to fully equip all cities.

But what would be the best strategy, to build only buildings or to build units and buildings at the same time.

Even if buildings were as powerful as they are in CtP1 (eg marketplace) it would still be better to build units at the same time for martial law and border scouts.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
But what would be the best strategy, to build only buildings or to build units and buildings at the same time.

It is a good strategy if you are playing against a week AI like in CTP2 or you are sitting on a island alone like in CTP1 or you use all the dirty tricks on a low level of difficuity like in Civ2. Obviously the makers of Civ2 are warmongers not builders otherwise they wouldn't have made the mistake to implement the 200 settlers bug again into Civ3.

-Martin

[MrBaggins]

My take on the expansionist builder...

Yes.. such a beast exists, and I wasn't specific enough in my definition.

In broad strokes, my solution, of "small empire cap/high development" and "high empire cap/medium development" are merely choices, that will result in very different empire feels.

Within a government, you can institute different strategies: A small empire can try to be a warmonger, and a large empire can try to be a peaceful builder.

My attempt is to give usable and balanced limitations and advantages to choices, that don't exist at all at the moment.

Those choices are best enabled through governments since governments in Civ largely embody the civs "personality"... that is Democratic, Technocracy, and so on.

These aren't hard and fast constructs, and many choices are available within... although surely some governments are more suited for different tasks, and in this case I was suggesting a smaller, more bureaucratically controlled government type would be suited for development and specifically the science victory, and obviously the regular governments

I wouldn't suggest that the empire caps be so low on the "small government" to totally preclude expansion and development... since, indeed, that would take much of the fun out of civ.

To some degree, however, civ has been subject to an inflationary effect on the number of cities and units. Civ2 was limited, and people railed against those limits, perhaps, but the number of cities towards the end, can tend to lead to overwhelm.

Better interfaces can improve this situation. The other solution, was snuck in by CtP2... expanding city radii. That is, vertical rather than numerical expansion of an empire.

An empire that had superior growth, PW and science modifiers would tend to grow vertically quickly.

In my mind, this is how the smaller empire would work. Less cities, but bigger more developed cities.

I think it would make for an interesting choice... and perhaps an interesting AI opponent...

Consider an island-bound AI. It has limited room to expand. If the AI were programmed to accept its situation of space limitation, and turn insular, then it would have a different feel from an AI with a great area to expand into... not that possibly that strategy couldn't change for the AI should he develop seafaring and find room to expand into.

A human player will find a way to expand. This is far from guaranteed for an AI, however.

[Maquiladora]

In my mind, this is how the smaller empire would work. Less cities, but bigger more developed cities.

This could work and the smaller empire would need government growth bonuses, like free Aquaducts to keep growing without sacrificing other builds. Obviously smaller cities grow more before they need tile imps so the "large city/small empire" could build farms for much cheaper PW.

Because of all these bonuses it needs to be harder to swtich to a different path on the government tree, or i could go small empire government, build all my farms cheap then switch to war large empire government.

[Solver]

Gee, had some good thoughts last night, but forgot most.

The problem is linked to how more always means better. More cities is better as long as you don't hit the city limit, etc. Generally, a good way to limit warmongering is simply to have a challenging AI. In Civ 3, where I know that the AI might actually get into my land and start killing my people if I declare war, I won't be warmongering like mad.

Warmongers sarcifice a bit of early science for number of cities - which gives them the science later. Builders start with scienece better, but are much slower later because of smaller size.

There should be some sort of a peaceful victory possible for small civs. The Gaia victory is, obviously, only possible to those civs who have done a lot of wars.