Funny Question to ask about civ... but civ REALLY goes wrong when it comes to empire building - especially in civ4 (again - so it seems).

Civ has always had a problem with building cities on distant continents and such - they are either unproductive (corruption) - or to expensive... civ4 sounds like it will still have the problem with the later. I just have a feeling that civ4 is going to once again put a stop to my plans to cover the entire map in one single colour.

Anyone hear of anything about this issue other then the fact that city maintainance goes up the farther they cities are from the capitol?

edit: Tho i may be jumping to conclusions :)

Hmmm... I think it should be darned difficult to cover the entire map with your color, as it is in real life. The closest any nation got was the British empire, with about 1/4 of the world under its flag, albeit for only a short time.

I do hope its easier to build a viable colony far away.

I just have a feeling that civ4 is going to once again put a stop to my plans to cover the entire map in one single colour.

Where is the fun in that??? You could always set up a game like that I guess, to each his own.

Why not go for a city builder type (simcity springs to mind), they are much more suited for a game like that.

EDIT: quote added

If there still a forbbiden palace in civ4 doint build it until you got a good part of another continent then build it in the city closest to the center of that part of your country (that helps some}

how does simcity have anything to do with what I metioned?

I am just stating that civ has always punished you for building a colony on another continent.

The British Empire may have had 1/4 to 1/3 of the world under its flag, but the bulk of that territory was not made up of proper colonies in the Civ sense. Only New England in North America, parts of Canada, Australia and NZ (plus any other stragglers I've forgotten - the Falklands etc) were actual, proper colonies made up of emigres who went on to either subdue or wipe out the formerly native peoples. All the other places - India and so on - were not colonised in the same manner as those other, true colonies.

It would be good if Civ4 featured the ability to make another civ's territory come under your rule without actually building citizens and buildings there - i.e. creaming off their wealth and manpower without actually going and conquering them - but from everything I've read I doubt that level of sophistication could be easily introduced into the core Civ gameplay mechanic.

I miss the old Civ2 style of founding colonies overseas on islands and parts of continents yet to be developed - late in the game it was still possible to find an unhinhabited portion of the map and get a city up and running pretty fast. Civ3's culture borders put paid to this but it'd be nice to see it back in some form. OK, I know a war between AI civs often leaves a destroyed city's land ripe for development, but sending a settler in to start a new city in between two or more giant AI cities is usually asking for trouble. Diverting units and attention to nurse it up to high culture, so it doesn't flip, just isn't an option for me in my chaotic late games.

Yes, historically, empires are always have to be so outsourced that they're almost independent nations again. Napoleon created his own kingdoms, almost never outright annexing territory. That's something I wish civ did better actually, is puppet nationry. Hearts of Iron II is a very realistic game in that sense. Civ is too black and white on territory.

Where is the fun in that??? You could always set up a game like that I guess, to each his own.

Why not go for a city builder type (simcity springs to mind), they are much more suited for a game like that.

Personally, I found it tedious and boring to take over the entire world, especially in Civ III. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed conquering several nations and taking over a continent. But taking over the whole map was a bit too much for my taste.

Ah, sorry there mate, I was responding to the OP, should have quoted it.

Personally, I found it tedious and boring to take over the entire world, especially in Civ III. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoyed conquering several nations and taking over a continent. But taking over the whole map was a bit too much for my taste.

:) well I always do it to Earth only... :) Cover the whole map with the might of Rome :)

I also like creating a custom map where i start on a small island that only fits a couple cities.. then have the challenge of creating an empire while everyone everyone else has tons of open land.

Civ has always had a problem with building cities on distant continents and such - they are either unproductive (corruption) - or to expensive... civ4 sounds like it will still have the problem with the later.

The way I understand it, the upkeep of the city will be high but it will still have all it's production. So, as long as the other cities can afford to subsidize it while it's building, you should be able to build enough improvements that eventually the city can support itself. You can't just run out and build cities like crazy, but given enough time you should be able to build a sizeable empire if that's what you want. I don't know if at some point the upkeep becomes so high that the city can't support itself no matter what.

Also i would imagine that with the right Civics choices, that by the modern Age a global empire will be self supporting (maybe not the most efficient, but abe to get some culture and science without running a deficit.)

I love the fact that expansion will have to be slow. For much of history, nation-states (or anything close) were the exception and vast areas were the domain of barbarians. It's great that Civs will now have to spread slower. And the fact that distant cities keep their production is cool; you could have a union of city states around the globe.

oooohhhhhhhhhhh so a citys production won't be affected AT ALL by capitol distance?

if thats the case I have nothing to grumble about :D thats awesome then. I can deal with the cost (i am usually past the end game when i try this so I don't have any research going).

I really can't wait for civ4! It better come out on my long weekend!!! haha

It's tedious enough getting to 66% -- I can't imagine the drudgery of trying to conquer the entire world. It gets to a point where it's clearly obvious it can be done.... so why bother?

But... to each their own.

Out of curiousity, I really want to know how many percent will there be a drop in Civ4 sales, if all those who like "conquest or build big empire" give up buying the game?

Many say, only few of those OLD MEN (who has been Civ fans since Civ1 or Civ2) like to play big map, huge empire (be it build or conquest). I have strong impression, most of the OLD MEN and all new comers (I suppose they are real young) are peacemongers and they contribute a big percentage of Civ4 (and probably future ver) sales.

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...

I doubt that, you might not be able to have a Big and Great Empire at a high difficulty level, but I think the point where your empire Must be big is gone. So that a small empire can be just as scientifically+culturally advanced as your big one. So that you make/keep your empire big you must also be the most efficient, with those multiple cities, keeping small allies from all turning on you (because if you control 1/2 the continent and 3 other civs control 1/6 of the continent two of them could probably stop you if you are all equal in skill/efficiency)

So becoming big will involve more diplomacy and internal empire management. Being Big will mostly give you the benefit of being closer to a Domination goal, without necessarily making it any easier to get there (moving from 5% to 15% of the Land area may be just as challenging as moving from 55 to 65% of the land area...all the while keeping your eye on that 3 city advanced island Civ thats about to launch a Rocket or The 5 city founder of Judaism building up to legendary cities behind a mountain chain, or the 7 city Civ across the oceans that is slowly working to become in position to get themselves crowned ruler of the world.) By being a big 30 city civ you are working to get a Domination Victory, you get the advantages of more strategic/luxury/food sources in your territory, a bigger army.. but your cash flow, science and culture are probably slightly weaker than the others, you will have to carefully decide which civ gets brought under your enlightened fist next... or rather which cities do you want to sieze... a particular Holy City or Wonder City for yourself, a resource that you lack, or perhaps you want to deny a resource/strategic position to someone else. You can't just oscilate between gobbling the weak and beating down the strong like a typical Civ game.

This means that Diplomatic/Space Race /and Cultural Wins will not just be ways to speed up the game when you are probably going to win anyways. The Big empire will be at a disadvantage there, it will probably have offended too many by how it got to its size, it will only produce slightly more science and culture even if efficeintly developed...so once you start building a truly big empire you MUST build the Biggest you must become a true globe spanning great empire to stand the test of time by Dominating the world.

I doubt that, you might not be able to have a Big and Great Empire at a high difficulty level, but I think the point where your empire Must be big is gone...

So becoming big will involve more diplomacy and internal empire management. Being Big will mostly give you the benefit of being closer to a Domination goal, without necessarily making it any easier to get there ...

I agree.
I think the victory condition for "Conquest" should be removed or at least make unavailable for huge map, leaving only the Domination victory.

IMO, Soren is a liar when he says: 1/3old, 1/3stay and 1/3new.
The 1/3old and 1/3new might be true for we have old features gone (like pollution) and new features in (like religion). But he purposely hides the fact that for the 1/3stay, they are not stay as they were in previous ver. Many of them get restricted, modified for limited use (like the rail movement).

From the previews so far, for old features that are still kept in Civ4, I have only 1 impression: RESTRICTION OVER RESTICTION

What you can't is far beyond what you can, and I doubt that is fun.

Also, remember when you're so dominant that you can cover the entire planet with you color, the efficiency loss from gaining more cities probably won't hurt you in relation to the other civs. At that point you're so dominant that it doesn't matter if your adding cities that are dead weight.

Also, remember when you're so dominant that you can cover the entire planet with you color, the efficiency loss from gaining more cities probably won't hurt you in relation to the other civs. At that point you're so dominant that it doesn't matter if your adding cities that are dead weight.


I think the idea is that you never reach that point (of being excessively dominant from size) but you do reach the point of having dead weight cities, so that the only reason to conquer a city is
1. City gives you a strategic advantage
2. City gives your opponent a strategic advantage
3. City gives you more territory and you want a Domination Win

Because unless the city is strategically special in some way it Won't help your economy overall, but it Will give you more territory=closer to a domination goal. This means that the game stays reasonably competitive until you actually win it.

I think the idea is that your overall science/culture will be less than a modest sized civ, but your military will be larger. (which is OK because you will need military to get a domination win)

And if you think they put on too many restrictions to make it fun for you to win with your desired strategy then just stick with playing at Warlord/Chieftan

Also, remember when you're so dominant that you can cover the entire planet with you color, the efficiency loss from gaining more cities probably won't hurt you in relation to the other civs. At that point you're so dominant that it doesn't matter if your adding cities that are dead weight.

The point is from all the info we have collected for Civ4, the condition:

"epic game"+"Conquest victory *ONLY"+"huge map"+"average or more difficulty level" is no other than "impossible"

*ONLY means all other victory conditions are OFF

I hope I am wrong. Is there any beta tester dare to tell me I am wrong, I mean you have actually tried that and won?

I think the problem, hclass, is that you are falling into the trap of thinking in half-civ3/half-civ4 terms. From an empire building perspective, the power of two things simply CANNOT be underestimated. The first is the end of corruption-where as when you conquered/built a city miles from your empire's heart, it would take HUNDREDS of years to make it worthwhile. Now, so long as you have the funds (and/or proper civics choices) you will be able to get a good city up and running nicely in fairly short order (due to having full production). Obviously conquered cities might take a bit longer due to unhappiness, but it will probably be shorter than the time it takes for corruption to become less of an issue. What this means is that the 10 movement point RR's become less of a big issue-because you can actually start building units closer to the front in a short space of time.
The second thing is Culture-the ability to fund culture and use great artists to push out your borders gives a very effective way of getting a nice culture bonus to add to the defense of your outlying conquests. Together, I think these tools could prove very powerful for the would-be world conquerer. That is not to say that it is a full-proof system, and that their aren't risks involved in these tactics-if it were otherwise, then warmongering and rampant expansionism would simply be a 'no-brainer'!! That is not what I consider a FUN game, and I feel certain that at least 80-90% of other civfanatics would agree!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The point is from all the info we have collected for Civ4, the condition:

"epic game"+"Conquest victory *ONLY"+"huge map"+"average or more difficulty level" is no other than "impossible"

*ONLY means all other victory conditions are OFF

I hope I am wrong. Is there any beta tester dare to tell me I am wrong, I mean you have actually tried that and won?

Actually if all other Victory conditions are Off then it is probably easier to win a Domination Victory (on average or whatever difficulty)

The only way that Civ 4 would make a Conquest/Domination Victory harder, is by making it Easier for a small civ to get a Cultural/Space Race win. Therefore beating you to your Domination/Conquest Win.

A Domination Win May be impossible to achieve in the Ancient or early Mideval period (not enough good Civics/money producing buildings to offset maintenance) but assuming that those are what you go for...it should work. A Late Mideval early Industrial Conquest/Domination win is probably quite reasonable.

I think the problem, hclass, is that you are falling into the trap of thinking in half-civ3/half-civ4 terms.
I don't think so.

From an empire building perspective, the power of two things simply CANNOT be underestimated...
What this means is that the 10 movement point RR's become less of a big issue-because you can actually start building units closer to the front in a short space of time.

I am sorry, I still keep my promise to drop the argument on the subject of "RR limited movement".


...
Together, I think these tools could prove very powerful for the would-be world conquerer. That is not to say that it is a full-proof system, and that their aren't risks involved in these tactics-if it were otherwise, then warmongering and rampant expansionism would simply be a 'no-brainer'!! That is not what I consider a FUN game, and I feel certain that at least 80-90% of other civfanatics would agree!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

You have your reasons there, but not answering my question:
What is your opinion on droping the "Conquest" victory condition from Civ4?
I mean if Firaxis can't make it possible to Conquest every city on a huge map, why put that fake victory option there?

From WHAT info collected, Hclass??? Sheesh, your whining is REALLY starting to grate on my nerves. Truth is, the ONLY people we have heard from about the game are people who simply aren't into the 'Conquer the whole World' approach. We know from past games how easy it is to warmonger, so we really don't need to hear it all over again. What most of us want is NEWS-and that news is how other ways of playing have been accomodated this time around. If peaceful building is now on a par with world conquest, then I will be a happy man indeed. If that ticks you off, hclass, then I can only suggest that you go and play a game which caters to your desire for 'relatively' easy conquest-because I think that total world conquest is going to be a hell of a challenge this time around!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Actually if all other Victory conditions are Off then it is probably easier to win a Domination Victory (on average or whatever difficulty)

Domination Victory is different from Conquest victory, I am talking about the latter.


The only way that Civ 4 would make a Conquest/Domination Victory harder, is by making it Easier for a small civ to get a Cultural/Space Race win. Therefore beating you to your Domination/Conquest Win.

If you OFF all other victory conditions (except the "conquest" victory), all players (human or AI), big or small will have to win with "Conquest" condition. So there is no such thing that a smaller Civ beaten a big one by space race.

May be Firaxis can keep the "Conquest" victory condition but put a restriction: You can't make it the sore winning condition. (i.e. you have to have 1 or more other victory conditions also ON)

AH ha, it is agian back to RESTRICTION!:D

You have your reasons there, but not answering my question:
What is your opinion on droping the "Conquest" victory condition from Civ4?
I mean if Firaxis can't make it possible to Conquest every city on a huge map, why put that fake victory option there?

Well I doubt its a fake victory condition ... and I assume you mean Domination, because Conquest is quite easy get your say 10 city empire and raze every other city in the world to the ground... no extra city maintenance to worry about.
Domination might be hard, but I doubt that if you have ~60% of the map covered with ....well developed.... cities and well chosen civics that you will be losing money ( you may be getting very little... meaning your science/culture will hurt... but that will improve with more advanced techs and buildings.. and should be irrelevant because you are about to win with Domination)m I'm almost certain that once all the techs are discovered, a profitable Civ could be run with 100% of the land area covered. (except any territory that cannot be settled ie mountains, deserts? tundra? etc.)

I think the news is that they actually may have fixed the fake victory conditions they had (Diplomacy, Culture, Space Race)

Man, you beat me to it Krikkitone. Conquest victory will be-in many ways-simpler than it has been in previous civ games because most nations will be on the scale of 10-20 cities. Plus, management of captured cities will be a LOT less tedious because of the new interface and rally-point system. Lastly, because the productivity of captured cities will-when 'happy'-be as productive as your core cities, then they will be much easier to bring into the war effort than before.
Oh but, of course, this conflicts with hclass's view that the game will be bad for conquerors, so I guess I had better stop telling him stuff which will conflict with this view point.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Well I doubt its a fake victory condition ... and I assume you mean Domination
No, I am refering to Conquest not Domination victory.

because Conquest is quite easy get your say 10 city empire and raze every other city in the world to the ground... no extra city maintenance to worry about.


If you resort to "RAZING" cities captured, it applies to both "Domination" and "Conquestion" victory conditions.
As of this point, that is the only mean one can go for "Conquest victory" (on huge map) but with few cities there (many of the captured cities will have to be razed)

Please can we stop raising the word "RAZE", I foresee it is the next thing Firaxis is going to F*i*x*, keep it among us, OK?:D

Domination Victory is different from Conquest victory, I am talking about the latter.


If you OFF all other victory conditions (except the "conquest" victory), all players (human or AI), big or small will have to win with "Conquest" condition. So there is no such thing that a smaller Civ beaten a big one by space race.

May be Firaxis can keep the "Conquest" victory condition but put a restriction: You can't make it the sore winning condition. (i.e. you have to have 1 or more other victory conditions also ON)

AH ha, it is agian back to RESTRICTION!:D

The only way a global empire (not Conquest Victory which means conquest of civs not conquering their cities) would NOT be possible is if the city maintenance costs exceed the money output of that number of well developed cities. I seriously doubt that that is possible. Given that they have to make it so that occupying 65% of the land is viable (for Domination), then occupying 100% should also be viable...although you might have to have Civics specifically designed to keep your treasury in the black, and all your specialists might need to be Merchants, Science and culture might have to be set at the lowest level...of course with so many cities.. its OK.

If you have Conquest Victory on as the only option then the best way to win will probably Not be building a Great Empire but by becoming a Great Barbarian Horde, razing cities to the ground so that you don't have to pay for them, slaughtering settlers and pillaging to support your army. (You would probably capture a few "Forward bases" for healing, and relocating troops) That way you can maintain a high level of science and culture at home.

However, If you decide to become big, your science and culture will slow as more $ is diverted to city maintenance, but your army will grow yet larger, and your waves of riflemen will have to destroy those few enemy tanks to take another city, but you will have waves and waves of riflemen.


PS Razing does Not apply to Domination as you have to control 65% of the land (admittedly you could raze and recolonize, but if you have 40% of the land and then wipe everyone else out you still have to get 25% more of the land, and doing it by taking a city is probably better than razing because a captured city will probably produce more than a new colony.)

Man, you beat me to it Krikkitone. Conquest victory will be-in many ways-simpler than it has been in previous civ games because most nations will be on the scale of 10-20 cities. Plus, management of captured cities will be a LOT less tedious because of the new interface and rally-point system. Lastly, because the productivity of captured cities will-when 'happy'-be as productive as your core cities, then they will be much easier to bring into the war effort than before.
Oh but, of course, this conflicts with hclass's view that the game will be bad for conquerors, so I guess I had better stop telling him stuff which will conflict with this view point.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The whole globe with a few cities, what a conquest! Sigh!
If one ever satisfy with the conquer of a BIG DESERT, he/she does not deserve the title "Conqueror"

To Aussie_Lurker:
I wish Napoleon can be resurrected and have him told you what a Conqueror should be.

I repeat: "the game will be bad for conquerors" and the "Conquest victory" is a fake option.:cool:

PS Razing does Not apply to Domination as you have to control 65% of the land (admittedly you could raze and recolonize, but if you have 40% of the land and then wipe everyone else out you still have to get 25% more of the land, and doing it by taking a city is probably better than razing because a captured city will probably produce more than a new colony.)

Sorry it was too long a history since the last time I won a Domination victory! (I always go the Conquest way) I can't really remember that condition, what do you mean by "land" here? I thought it means you need to occupy 60% of all occupied tiles not 60% of all tiles from the map right?
Can you confirm that 60% of the "land" refer to land tiles on the map?

hclass, wow..... Even I'm losing my patience. The game isn't even out yet and you are already basically spitting on Firaxis. As I said in the other thread, I also like the Conquest victory condition. They are correct in that it would be easier just to raze and I'll probably resort to that on occasion. I also know what you are talking about...sometimes you just get that urge to control *everything.* Well, I say that it can still be done. From everything that I've been reading I haven't read anything that has lead me to believe that you can't own the globe. The only thing I'm getting out of what I'm reading is that it'll be more of a challenge and in my book that's a good thing. It can get boring when it's so easy just to settler pump your way to victory. I'm loving what I'm hearing about what they've done. :) This coming from someone who loves to own the globe too.

-teck

hclass, wow..... Even I'm losing my patience. The game isn't even out yet and you are already basically spitting on Firaxis. As I said in the other thread, I also like the Conquest victory condition. They are correct in that it would be easier just to raze and I'll probably resort to that on occasion. I also know what you are talking about...sometimes you just get that urge to control *everything.* Well, I say that it can still be done. From everything that I've been reading I haven't read anything that has lead me to believe that you can't own the globe. The only thing I'm getting out of what I'm reading is that it'll be more of a challenge and in my book that's a good thing. It can get boring when it's so easy just to settler pump your way to victory. I'm loving what I'm hearing about what they've done. :) This coming from someone who loves to own the globe too.

-teck

You are very optimistic.
Sorry I can't be as optimistic as you.

Can I PM you about this BIG EMPIRE+CONQUEST thing say after 2 weeks of the release of this Civ4 - The non-conqueror's game?
I really want to know how will you feel by then.

The point is from all the info we have collected for Civ4, the condition:

"epic game"+"Conquest victory *ONLY"+"huge map"+"average or more difficulty level" is no other than "impossible"

*ONLY means all other victory conditions are OFF

I hope I am wrong. Is there any beta tester dare to tell me I am wrong, I mean you have actually tried that and won?

This seems to be a pointless discussion.

I am quite sure you can:
-play epic game
-conquest only (see below)
-huge map (largest map in "great plains" option, will give more land than civ 3 ever had)
-and any difficulty

http:///files/gallery/previews/markg/pm-2-customgame.jpg

I'm confused.

A) Why can't you just play on a big map if you want an empire with lots of cities?

B) If it's aesthetics thing, empires will actually look more like empires in civ 4 with hamlets, suburbs, and mini city tiles sprouting up in between your main cities.

Anyway, if you're pessemistic, be pessimistic for the next whole week, this isn't the sorta thing worth arguing over this close to release.

uhhh.. why does the screenshot have "Civilizations: 5.0"? Does that mean there can be fractional number of civs in the game?

This seems to be a pointless discussion.

I am quite sure you can:
-play epic game
-conquest only (see below)
-huge map (largest map in "great plains" option, will give more land than civ 3 ever had)
-and any difficulty

http:///files/gallery/previews/markg/pm-2-customgame.jpg

Don't make me laugh... (anyway, I am laughing...):D
Do you see the word impossible is enclosed within quotes?
Think again, think ...

You can put 10 civs on a map intended for 4, if you really want to!

I've also had larger empires than that. I have had an empire with 20+ cities on a Standard map. It really depends on playstyle and strategy. You can build 7 cities, sit there without being aggressive and win, or you can conquer everyone, get to 30 cities and also win.

How about that for a Beta-tester confirmation that conquest is possible?

You can put 10 civs on a map intended for 4, if you really want to!

I've also had larger empires than that. I have had an empire with 20+ cities on a Standard map. It really depends on playstyle and strategy. You can build 7 cities, sit there without being aggressive and win, or you can conquer everyone, get to 30 cities and also win.


How about that for a Beta-tester confirmation that conquest is possible?

Ah! Are you sure you have that quoted correctly?
I remember one of my Civ3 game (Conquest only victory) has about 100 over cities in my empire and that is only about 2/3 of the game length...

Say on a huge map with 8 players (including you as a human player), if everyone only build about 30 cities and you want to conquer the whole world (without r..zing any of the captured city) you will have totally 240 cities to go before you can win... It looks like Solver is over a mini map and short game, I suppose...

Man, hclass, you are TRULY TRULY impossible to talk to. If all this bothers you SO MUCH, then just GO AWAY and play a game more in line with your attention span-'cause it seems clear that a long and challenging game of conquest then consolidation is simply too much for you to handle. Has it occured to you what a LONE VOICE you are in almost all these forums? Not in the fact that you have doubts-we all do to some degree-just that you are so adamant that you are right that you refuse to hear or believe anything that anyone else has to say to the contrary. Seriously, if you are so sure, then why even come and post on these forums? Its not like you are gonna get anything out of it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Not sure, but Solver talked about playing on standard maps in other comments. Assuming there are two bigger and smaller sizes, there are bigger maps.

And dont forget the "great plains" option. In civ3 panagea still had 60% water, now you can have a huge landmass and in theory lots of cities. Of course they wont be as close together as was feasible in civ 3.

You will need a solid economy to march accross the planet and take all other cities.

Man, hclass, you are TRULY TRULY impossible to talk to. If all this bothers you SO MUCH, then just GO AWAY and play a game more in line with your attention span-'cause it seems clear that a long and challenging game of conquest then consolidation is simply too much for you to handle. Has it occured to you what a LONE VOICE you are in almost all these forums? Not in the fact that you have doubts-we all do to some degree-just that you are so adamant that you are right that you refuse to hear or believe anything that anyone else has to say to the contrary. Seriously, if you are so sure, then why even come and post on these forums? Its not like you are gonna get anything out of it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Although I don't enjoy what you have put there, but I do think it will contribute to the growth of better Civ in the future...

At least, making this a bigger thread means it is easier to catch Firaxis's eye and have someone there seriously test out huge map+conquest only combination. Long live the conqueror!:D

... have someone there seriously test out huge map+conquest only combination. Long live the conqueror!:D

My suggestion is you...

...when you get the game next week.

And let us all know what you have found after trying the game. Then you can let us and Firaxis know if all your fears and worries were justified.

actually, hclass, all your constant whining and personal attacks on the Firaxis team (effectively accusing them of being 'incompetent'), along with your unwillingness to listen to any other point of view, will do little more than get you-and any thread you take part in-put on the 'Ignore' list of most Firaxians.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

actually, hclass, all your constant whining and personal attacks on the Firaxis team (effectively accusing them of being 'incompetent'),
I find it cute when you add the adjective "constant" in front of whining.:D

along with your unwillingness to listen to any other point of view, will do little more than get you-and any thread you take part in-put on the 'Ignore' list of most Firaxians.

What a special news, please don't hesitate to tell me whichever thread you want to put on Firaxis's "Ignore" list, I will just drop a line or two therein, OK?:cool:

Just a quick reminder to everyone getting worked up about this:
Anyone, including hclass is entitled to their own opinion and to posting it here.
Everyone else is then free to ignore this opinion and it's poster (including hclass). ;)

Everyone else is then free to ignore this opinion and it's poster (including hclass). ;)

It would be nice if these forums had an "ignore user" feature. I know the software supports it, it's just not turned on. If it was, we could all ignore the irrational whiner and hijack the thread into something more interesting.

I'll start.

So, how about those unit promotions? Good idea, too micromanaging, too RPGish, what? Personally I like them.

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...

Sweet melodrama. Out of curiosity, do we have any reason to believe you can't have a huge empire? That's been a hallmark of all Civ games, and I highly doubt it's going to disappear in Civ IV. From what I understand, it'll be more difficult/expensive to "maintain" than Civ III, but doable nonetheless.

It would be a dissappointment if they made it impossible. Edit: since conquest is a victory condition, that pretty much guarantees it can be done, no?

-V

I don't think it's impossible to have a huge empire. I reckon it's just not possible to have one early on. This is realistic. I'm looking forward to recreating the British Empire, wonder if there's any way to mod in a sun. :)

Sweet melodrama. Out of curiosity, do we have any reason to believe you can't have a huge empire? That's been a hallmark of all Civ games, and I highly doubt it's going to disappear in Civ IV. From what I understand, it'll be more difficult/expensive to "maintain" than Civ III, but doable nonetheless.

It would be a dissappointment if they made it impossible. Edit: since conquest is a victory condition, that pretty much guarantees it can be done, no?

-V
I am not using any dictionary, so I will just simply put it this way, to me, the word GREAT means BIG and GOOD. In Civ3, no doubt one can have a BIG empire, but it can only contains a lot of rubbish (1 shield cities). So soemthing BIG+STINKY is definitely not GREAT. Now, if Civ4 is going to be harder (than Civ3) in achieving GREAT empire, I really can't imagine what will be the outcome...could it be BIG + BLANKS? I mean, you can still have huge empire, but with very few cities scatter sparsely on it... sigh!

Check this out:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3106089&postcount=7 :D

Well, from the previews, it does look like the large empires will disappear in games where war is allowed. But, I think you can get back the super civs with some simple mods, such as: Flat rate cost for cities any distance from your capital, Lower increasing costs for additional cities, A bonus for capturing enemy civs cities (such as a technology or gold), Cultural bonuses for conquering land if you are a warlike or expansionist civilization. Other stuff along these lines could help bring back the rise and dominance again of the super civs.

This won't be so easy to just put in without testing how the AI reacts/interacts. Having the bonuses might not be possible to mod until the SDK comes out. Everything else should be straightforward enough.

I'm probably going to stick to the smaller powerful civ strategies if I can, and therefore probably go with the vanilla version rules to start. I might even not touch the Railroad limited movement thing for a my first game (or atleast a number of turns into late game) until I get an idea on how that will work with the giant map I plan on playing on.

I sympathise, to some degree, with hclass. Because I'm also one of those players who loves to conquer the whole map, and it seems that with every successive instalment of Civ they make it more and more impractical to do so.

I still vividly remember playing the first civ game. Rather perversely, the best bits were at the end, where you watched the replay of the game, showing your empire expand until the entire map was your colour, or the screen where you watched all the leaders you conquered get guillotined. I always thought the space race was something to do if you didn't have enough time to conquer the world, i.e. if you failed. I was surprised when I found out, several years ago now, that other people thought differently about what the point of the game was. And I'm just as surprised to find out now that I'm apparently part of a small minority.

Then again, why anyone would want to conquer the whole word on the biggest maps available is beyond me. Taking and managing all those cities always takes far too long. Generally I stick to smaller maps with more civs than are recommended, that way I can start conquering very early. Always good to eliminate a civilization before 0 BCE. :D

I am not using any dictionary, so I will just simply put it this way, to me, the word GREAT means BIG and GOOD. In Civ3, no doubt one can have a BIG empire, but it can only contains a lot of rubbish (1 shield cities). So soemthing BIG+STINKY is definitely not GREAT. Now, if Civ4 is going to be harder (than Civ3) in achieving GREAT empire, I really can't imagine what will be the outcome...could it be BIG + BLANKS? I mean, you can still have huge empire, but with very few cities scatter sparsely on it... sigh!

Check this out:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3106089&postcount=7 :D

OK that is the issue you want a Big and Good Empire. Not going to happen (assuming by Good you mean efficient) because if your Big Empire is just as efficient as a a small empire you have a massive advantage and the big empire will win at any type of Victory, meaning that there is only one Victory Condition/Strategy.

However if by Good you mean just as much overall output then you can have a Big and Good Empire, you just have to accept the fact that your Big Empire will be Just as Good (in terms of overall production) as a Small Empire. Its money/science/culture will be somewhat worse, but the production will be more. So Overall your Big Empire will have less output per city (be not Good), but just as much overall output (be as Good) as a Small one.

PS Domination is % of Total squares not occupied squares.

I think if you really want to conquer the world in Civ4 the best strategy would be this: military+religion. You get easy income, relations boost, and FREE line of sight. Once you implant your religion into the cities of these smaller civs with liberal civics like freedom of religion, you can sit back and plan your attack as you analyze all of their defending forces. Fending you off by changing to theology would come at a significant cost to them, and even if you don't go for a full out assault, you can certainly destroy their forces in the field. Pillaging the bejeezus out of their land and bombarding their cities will probably pretty effectively put a stop to their building.

As for concerns that firaxis has made it impossible to conquer the world, I seriously doubt it. They want to make money. They aren't stupid.

I think the removal of the old corruption model will allow far flung empires to be a far better going concern than previously. That production isn't effected allows their development, moreover it allows warmongers to churn units out of newly acquired cities - something that in Civ3/Civ2/Civ1 wasn't particularly easy. In general it was your core that was vital, the rest had its uses, but was pretty expendable.

The idea that if someone concentrates upon domestic development whilst ignoring building military units can compete with someone building up a military ESPECIALLY as you can't switch production accumulated from buildings/wonders to units is laughable. Whilst there may be mechanisms to make holding cities difficult, there is little that I've read to prevent you simply trashing an enemy civ to disadvantage them.

Indeed, for the warmonger you get gold now for pillaging improvements, that may cover the costs of a few too many cities and works to the good of trashing your opponents land - to slow them down in relation to you.

Given the civics that have come in, the new corruption model and that peacemongers have more things to build than ever before I think the warmonger won't have too much to worry about.

Given also that appears it may be harder to build more cities due to the cost of settlers, warmongers who spend production on miltary units get an advantage there too. Whilst Civ A has been building a settler, the warmonger may have build 2-4 miltary units (especially if Civ A sends an escort unit) with which to attack the new city. The cost effectiveness of taking rather than building your own cities is increased due to the new city having no restriction on production - more miltary units quickly, the WAAAAGH continues on thus.

Add to THAT the promotions - 20 in total - it means that an experienced army of units who have seen alot of conquesting seriously will outgun those of opponents who haven't been at war. Indeed, your battle hardened units will make mince-meat out of them in all likelihood and so gain more promotions so the disparity becomes greater - like a ball of snow going downhill in a cartoon.


My name is kittenOFchaos and I'm a warmonger :D

hclass I am also one who loves to conquer the world I do so now on civ III on huge maps with 6 civs usually (to give them room to grow, maps are too small to me lol). So I understand your point but disagree with it, on the harder difficultys I can still conquer the world in about two weeks of playing a few hours a day and I believe this will still be possible with cIV but will simple take longer and be more challanging (thank God). There is no real evidence to support your opinion just your fear that a beloved game may not be playable. Well I say just take a breath sit back and relax and wait till it comes out you should be able to find out in a matter of days after release on this board whether you theory is correct or not so why get all bothered now? Unless you just like getting people riled up so you can post in long threads which I hope is not the case. Don't let your fears run away with you.

I think the removal of the old corruption model will allow far flung empires to be a far better going concern than previously. That production isn't effected allows their development, moreover it allows warmongers to churn units out of newly acquired cities - something that in Civ3/Civ2/Civ1 wasn't particularly easy. In general it was your core that was vital, the rest had its uses, but was pretty expendable.

The idea that if someone concentrates upon domestic development whilst ignoring building military units can compete with someone building up a military ESPECIALLY as you can't switch production accumulated from buildings/wonders to units is laughable. Whilst there may be mechanisms to make holding cities difficult, there is little that I've read to prevent you simply trashing an enemy civ to disadvantage them.

Indeed, for the warmonger you get gold now for pillaging improvements, that may cover the costs of a few too many cities and works to the good of trashing your opponents land - to slow them down in relation to you.

Given the civics that have come in, the new corruption model and that peacemongers have more things to build than ever before I think the warmonger won't have too much to worry about.

Given also that appears it may be harder to build more cities due to the cost of settlers, warmongers who spend production on miltary units get an advantage there too. Whilst Civ A has been building a settler, the warmonger may have build 2-4 miltary units (especially if Civ A sends an escort unit) with which to attack the new city. The cost effectiveness of taking rather than building your own cities is increased due to the new city having no restriction on production - more miltary units quickly, the WAAAAGH continues on thus.

Add to THAT the promotions - 20 in total - it means that an experienced army of units who have seen alot of conquesting seriously will outgun those of opponents who haven't been at war. Indeed, your battle hardened units will make mince-meat out of them in all likelihood and so gain more promotions so the disparity becomes greater - like a ball of snow going downhill in a cartoon.


My name is kittenOFchaos and I'm a warmonger :D

Ah ha, I have missed that few points that Civ4 actually sides the warmonger!
You are really a warmonger, I know it from what you have put.
My name is hclass and I like you:goodjob:

OK that is the issue you want a Big and Good Empire. Not going to happen (assuming by Good you mean efficient) because if your Big Empire is just as efficient as a a small empire you have a massive advantage and the big empire will win at any type of Victory, meaning that there is only one Victory Condition/Strategy.

However if by Good you mean just as much overall output then you can have a Big and Good Empire, you just have to accept the fact that your Big Empire will be Just as Good (in terms of overall production) as a Small Empire. Its money/science/culture will be somewhat worse, but the production will be more. So Overall your Big Empire will have less output per city (be not Good), but just as much overall output (be as Good) as a Small one.

If you read most of my posts in this thread, you will reliaze I have more concern on the "Conquest only" victory+huge map. Meaning, all players have to win with the conquest victory. In this case, like it or not, the winner has to be a conqueror who will eventually capture every city and become the sore and the biggest. So in this case, applying any mechanism to make sure a small civ still has a chance to win is unwise or more precisely contradict to the only victory condition (set by user). That is why I keep repeating that "Conquest" ONLY victory condition is fake. I think fake is not so accurate, but irrational seems to be more proper.

I do understand the need to slow down a rolling snowball, but the "slow down" mechanism has to be ended at some point, (bear in mind the conqueror has to be the sore and biggest) and I don't see in any preview or pre-release info that this slow down mechanism (particularly the maintenance cost) has a limit (meaning can be overcome eventually).

For Civ3, since corruption rate has no limit (its graph has no upper bound), conqueror become a rubbish collector and in Civ4, if "maintenance cost" also has no limit, won't it be quite simple to figure out that the conqueror will be a SPARSE?


PS Domination is % of Total squares not occupied squares.
Thanks for the info.

As for concerns that firaxis has made it impossible to conquer the world, I seriously doubt it. They want to make money. They aren't stupid.

The desire to make money does not gurantee Firaxis to be smart. Many time they made real stupid decisions in Civ game features, like their mind is corrupted as much as my number 199 city captured.:D

Out of curiousity, I really want to know how many percent will there be a drop in Civ4 sales, if all those who like "conquest or build big empire" give up buying the game?

Many say, only few of those OLD MEN (who has been Civ fans since Civ1 or Civ2) like to play big map, huge empire (be it build or conquest). I have strong impression, most of the OLD MEN and all new comers (I suppose they are real young) are peacemongers and they contribute a big percentage of Civ4 (and probably future ver) sales.

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...

This was a really good and legitimate thread about an area of the game we haven't heard alot about that was hijacked by trolling. Since you won't be convinced by reason, argument, or evidence, nor will will you admit the possibility that you could eventually be proven wrong when the game is available, then I wish you would take your own advice:

go find another game...

kittenofchaos

I just wanted to jump in and congratulate KittenofChaos (:eek:) for apparently convincing the unconvincible, and Aussie and others for hanging in there and fighting the good fight. :lol:

I've attempted arguing with HClass in the past and given up out of frustration and my brain approaching madness and despair. :crazyeye:

hclass has been pretty funny with some of his wiseguy comments. good stuff.

Anyway - ok also I don't think it's fair to say that cities will be spread further... I've mapped a couple of screens out where people were concerned, and it was identical to Civ III, unless people normally do overlapping cities?

#3 - It sounds like someone could decide to make a living as a sort of "barbarian", just running around pillaging peoples improvements and such

If you read most of my posts in this thread, you will reliaze I have more concern on the "Conquest only" victory+huge map. Meaning, all players have to win with the conquest victory. In this case, like it or not, the winner has to be a conqueror who will eventually capture every city and become the sore and the biggest. So in this case, applying any mechanism to make sure a small civ still has a chance to win is unwise or more precisely contradict to the only victory condition (set by user). That is why I keep repeating that "Conquest" ONLY victory condition is fake. I think fake is not so accurate, but irrational seems to be more proper.

I do understand the need to slow down a rolling snowball, but the "slow down" mechanism has to be ended at some point, (bear in mind the conqueror has to be the sore and biggest) and I don't see in any preview or pre-release info that this slow down mechanism (particularly the maintenance cost) has a limit (meaning can be overcome eventually).

For Civ3, since corruption rate has no limit (its graph has no upper bound), conqueror become a rubbish collector and in Civ4, if "maintenance cost" also has no limit, won't it be quite simple to figure out that the conqueror will be a SPARSE?


Thanks for the info.

First on the Conquest/Domination only Victory (remember Conquest works with Small Empires) Yes if those conditions are enabled then a small empire can't win, just like a warmonger can't win in a diplomatic victory only game. but the mechanisms (that allow a warmonger or small civ to be competitive) will still be there. If nothing else those mechanisms will mean that one of those small 5% of the world Civs may suddenly in the late game begin a massive advance on you (who have had 40% of the map for millenia) and get that late conquest Win because their small empire is about as good as your large one). so the Conquest only game becomes more interesting with 'Swings' in territory more likely (not ...as soon as you start losing cities you crumble..., because losing some cities might actually help your war effort, or at least your recovery after you get peace.)

As for maintenance cost limit.. in Civ 3 there was a limit. You may collect 'rubbish cities' but they would never be an actual negative, they would always be near 0. In Civ 4 there will not be a limit. BUT does there need to be? no because you will never colonize more than 100% of the land, so if the Theoretical point at which an Empire is forced into permanent deficit from city maintenance (Nmax) is 200% of the land mass, then there doesn't need to be a limit to city maintenance increase because you will never reach the point of getting there. (now it might be 40% of land mass with beginning game techs, but that's reasonable.)

It all matters what "N" is. If Nmax is 90% of the land mass then there is a problem, but I seriously doubt that (remember Nmax is the number of fully developed gold optimized cities that results in a net gpt of 0 or less for the whole empire) With towns able to produce something like 10 gold per tile with the right civics, and banks and marketplaces .... That means a city should be able to produce something like 100s of gpt or possibly even more once it is fully developed. So even though the maintenance costs of a 100 city global empire may be in the tens of thousands you should be able to maintain it. (although you might be losing 60-90% of your income to city maintenance I doubt you will lose 100-200% if your income is good enough)


In terms of comparing empires, from the info this is what I see (Nopt is the Number of Cities where adding a new Fully developed city decreases your gpt to a lower amount)

Small ... best for culture and science as those seem to have an addition size effect (culture is divided among your cities and tech costs are more for bigger empires), also most able to add new developing cities. Key strategy=Defensive War, High Culture+Science Defensive alliances... eventual Cultural/Space Race Win

Medium (N opt)...Flexible, able to expand quickly if it needs to, good trading position as it should have a decent number of resources of its own... probable eventual Diplomatic win (highest GPT and decent resource trading+ decent Military position makes a solid ally)

Large...Highest overall production (giving biggest army) will have most Great people [due to large number of Great people making cities], also will have best 'resource situation' but will hurt in science and culture, cannot expand quickly, because new cities decrease gpt even if fully developed (which newly acquired cities usually aren't). Will need to work at continuously acquiring the most useful cities and trading its resources and military freindship for technologies from the smaller civs. Most concerned about avoiding collateral damage in cities that it will capture, because they need to pay for themselves.

As for maintenance cost limit.. in Civ 3 there was a limit. You may collect 'rubbish cities' but they would never be an actual negative, they would always be near 0.

I think you are mislead by the figure 1 (which is close to zero) and never go to -ve.
Remember the 1 shiled limit is a limit on the "reward" or "gain" not a limit on the strength of corruption (which stops the rolling of a snowball).



In Civ 4 there will not be a limit.

If that is true, then Civ has no tomorrow.
There will sure be something which stinks, this time it might not be those "1 shield cities", but probably something else which could be worse.



BUT does there need to be?

Yes there is a need to let go the increase of maintenance cost or the maintenance cost itself at some point, otherwise there will be no fun at all for the conqueror on a huge map. It is like asking should corruption become zero after the Conqueror reach certain #cities, my answer is yes! Otherwise the conqueror is becoming a rubbish collector and that make him as stinky as the rubbish he collects!



no because you will never colonize more than 100% of the land, so if the Theoretical point at which an Empire is forced into permanent deficit from city maintenance (Nmax) is 200% of the land mass, then there doesn't need to be a limit to city maintenance increase because you will never reach the point of getting there. (now it might be 40% of land mass with beginning game techs, but that's reasonable.)

Your reason for the no is illogical. It is like saying, I know you won't jump off from the top of a 100 floors building, so that serves a good reason for me to believe you will never die.:D
You have to think more from the perspective of one who like to conquer, e.g. Napoleon (not like those who try and can never learn something from him)


It all matters what "N" is...
(remember Nmax is the number of fully developed gold optimized cities that results in a net gpt of 0 or less for the whole empire)...
With towns able to produce something like 10 gold per tile with the right civics, and banks and marketplaces ....

Can't you see if you replace
1) "gold" with "shield"
2) "market place" with "court house"
3) "Bank" with "Police station"
in what you have described above, the model of "maintenance cost" in Civ4 suddenly become so similar to the "corruption system" in Civ3.
So tell me, would you want many 1 gold cities in Civ4, assuming you are a CONQUEROR?
or even worse, would you want to go bankruptcy by having more and more -ve gold cities?

The more I read, the more I feel that you are supporting my argument that Civ4 actually embeds a even worse "corruption system" than Civ3, the only tricks Firaxis plays this time is replace all A's with B's that it is.

Sorry, I have to add this:
that also means if a limit is placed on the "maintenance cost", then the system will be a perfect one and the reverse will make it no other than Civ3's "corruption system" - in fact worse than the latter

kittenofchaos

I just wanted to jump in and congratulate KittenofChaos (:eek:) for apparently convincing the unconvincible, and Aussie and others for hanging in there and fighting the good fight. :lol:
Come on, how can you compare a real fighter (like kittenofchaos) to those who pretend to be...


I've attempted arguing with HClass in the past and given up out of frustration and my brain approaching madness and despair. :crazyeye:

bombastic!


hclass has been pretty funny with some of his wiseguy comments. good stuff.

Thank you.


Anyway - ok also I don't think it's fair to say that cities will be spread further... I've mapped a couple of screens out where people were concerned, and it was identical to Civ III, unless people normally do overlapping cities?

Beside map size, it also depends on the kind of victory condition one play with. Please use the word sparse (I like it :D) and it is inevitable in the case I am interested.

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...

At least, making this a bigger thread means it is easier to catch Firaxis's eye and have someone there seriously test out huge map+conquest only combination. Long live the conqueror!:D

I am not using any dictionary, so I will just simply put it this way, to me, the word GREAT means BIG and GOOD.

Meaning, all players have to win with the conquest victory. In this case, like it or not, the winner has to be a conqueror who will eventually capture every city and become the sore and the biggest.

Hehe. You seem to have a very napoleonic (or, ahem, freudian) obsession with size :)

I can sort of relate. Back when I was a kid playing civ 1 I tried the whole "cover the whole world" thing a few times. Unfortunately, that took ages and seemed to crash the game. So I guess I lost my enthusiasm for that sort of game. But I understand the urge.

When civ 3 came out I thought it was dumb at first, because the corruption didn't let you get much satisfaction out of building big empires. But then I tried playing with some self-imposed restrictions (one continent/one city/etc.), and I found the game to be a lot more fun than trying to expand indefinitely. I urge you to give it a shot. Being the little civ that crushes all your enemies is a lot of fun. And still warmongery, I might add, since I like to wipe out all those insolent nations before I quit.

So keep an open mind and try playing differently a couple of times. You might find you enjoy it.

Have fun,
Grant

I think you are on to something there Gruther. Hclass DOES seem overly concerned about SIZE-that says a lot about him I would say :mischief:. Anyway, I promised myself I would ignore him from now on-as he is simply stuck on the same track.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Sorry, I have to add this:
that also means if a limit is placed on the "maintenance cost", then the system will be a perfect one and the reverse will make it no other than Civ3's "corruption system" - in fact worse than the latter


OK regarding the limit, the limit to the city maintenance cost in Civ 4 is the number of cities that will fit on the map. after that point city maintenance will not go up any more...are you satisfied , You now have a Perfect system because there is now a limit to the (corruption/maintenance) cost of a big empire.. it will never get above X for a given map

Of course if you put as many cities on the map as will physically fit, I can almost guarantee that you will run a massive deficit because those will be tiny pathetic cities (1-4 squares each except some of the coastal ones) and you will have way too many of them. On the other hand, if you put as many cities on the map as you can while giving the full 20 squares to each with no/minimal overlap, then I will bet you will probably be running a surplus once all those cities are fully developed (with all the modern banks+ marketplaces and towns everywhere), and as long as you don't choose civics that hurt your gold/increase maintenance too much.



Those "Tricks" are actually very important. I always like large globe spanning empires, which is why I would go for Communism in Civ 3 why, because it would allow all those far flung cities to build themselves up without me having to cash rush building after building (plus once they were built up they could do worthwhile things). The change that they are putting in for city maintenance/corruption is actually the same thing they did with unit support. In Civ 1+2 units took production from a home city to support, and they made that city unhappy in wartime. In Civ 3 they required money from the imperial treasury to support and made the whole civ unhappy with War Weariness. In Civ1-3 corruption was a penalty against the trade and production of a city, in Civ 4 it will be a penalty against the imperial treasury instead.

Now could you have big empires in Civ 3, yes you just had a lot of worthless cities (that did nothing but take up space and would never develop ie build their improvements/Wonders)
Now can you build big empires in Civ 4, yes you just have a lot of Expensive cities (which will develop just as fast and be just as good for Wonders/units as any other of your cities).

Now for someone who is concerned with his Empires being Great, what would you rather have: a worthless city that you invest and invest in but that only takes up space OR an expensive city that can churn out Units, Wonders, and Great Persons just as fast as your capital (It just costs a lot so it Overall hurts your science/culture)

The fact is big empires are now something different, in Civ 2 or less they were just like any other empire, but better. In civ 3 they were almost exactly like any other empire, but somewhat better and having an extra ring of 'territory'. In Civ 4 they will be different, their quality of science and culture will be less, but they will have quantity, which is a quality all its own according to the ruler of the largest state at the time.

The desire to make money does not gurantee Firaxis to be smart.


Yeah, you're right on that point. It does not guarantee anything. But with all the blood sweat and tears going into this game chances are they taking a lot of care to balance things out for builders and warmongers alike. Personally I enjoy trying out as many strategies and variations as I can think of, so all the new possibilities and challenges in Civ4 are what makes it appealing.:cool:


Seriously though, I bet warmonger + religion will be a *blast*
:nuke: ...Convert to Buddhism or we will blow you to nirvana!:nuke:

Hehe. You seem to have a very napoleonic (or, ahem, freudian) obsession with size :)

All normal male has some regard over size.
Many male are proud of their gigantic size.
What is wrong with you to think so bad about big in size?


So keep an open mind and try playing differently a couple of times. You might find you enjoy it.

I have tried playing with all kind of victory conditions in Civ2 and Civ3 (except for diplomacy victory). I have then stick to 1 kind of victory which I enjoy the most.
So my favour in the Napoleon/Size/BIG (choose whichever you want) has nothing to do with a narrow/open mind

Oh, Gruther, you hit a NERVE. Given how sensitive he is about your size comment-and his desperate attempt at overcompensation-suggests that he is lacking in size of a certain type :mischief:. Oh well, if you REALLY need a huge empire to compensate for other defficiencies, then may I suggest Civ2 or Test of Time?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

This was a really good and legitimate thread about an area of the game we haven't heard alot about that was hijacked by trolling. Since you won't be convinced by reason, argument, or evidence, nor will will you admit the possibility that you could eventually be proven wrong when the game is available, then I wish you would take your own advice:

I have a better way, but I won't tell you. :cool:

OK regarding the limit, the limit to the city maintenance cost in Civ 4 is the number of cities that will fit on the map. after that point city maintenance will not go up any more...are you satisfied , You now have a Perfect system because there is now a limit to the (corruption/maintenance) cost of a big empire.. it will never get above X for a given map

I really wish what you have speculated is TRUE that there is such X which is map size dependent. Yes I am satisfied.:D


Now could you have big empires in Civ 3, yes you just had a lot of worthless cities (that did nothing but take up space and would never develop ie build their improvements/Wonders)
Now can you build big empires in Civ 4, yes you just have a lot of Expensive cities (which will develop just as fast and be just as good for Wonders/units as any other of your cities).

Now for someone who is concerned with his Empires being Great, what would you rather have:
I rather have Firaxis modify the game such that:
When a conqueror wins, at least, at the later stage of the game, the maintenance cost barrier can be waived and give the conqueror a beutiful empire he has conquered.


The fact is big empires are now something different, in Civ 2 or less they were just like any other empire, but better. In civ 3 they were almost exactly like any other empire, but somewhat better and having an extra ring of 'territory'. In Civ 4 they will be different, their quality of science and culture will be less, but they will have quantity, which is a quality all its own according to the ruler of the largest state at the time.
To me, Big empire in
1) Civ2 is like a big gun
2) Civ3 is like a big gun with stinky piss
3) Civ4 might like a big gun with very few bullets.

Oh, Gruther, you hit a NERVE. Given how sensitive he is about your size comment-and his desperate attempt at overcompensation-suggests that he is lacking in size of a certain type :mischief:. Oh well, if you REALLY need a huge empire to compensate for other defficiencies, then may I suggest Civ2 or Test of Time?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Hi,
I might have opinion that against the whole world, but I have never spam a thread like you did.
You should at least understand my situation, I have a BIG extra arm, so if I have accidently hit your balls somewhere sometime, I apology. ( Is it painful?)

Btw, mine pass the "Test of time", what about yours?:D

My absolute LAST WORD on this matter before I finally consign you to the dust bin. I do NOT SPAM THREADS! I only ever post something if I feel I have something genuine to add. You, on the other hand, mostly just come on to threads to troll-to post overly negative comments, seemingly just to bait people into responding. You have never EVER felt the need to change your opinions-irrespective of the contrary evidence-wheras I am always happy to admit when I am wrong. I have said once, and will say one last time-if you think the game is going to suck THAT MUCH, then simply DON'T BUY IT, it won't be any skin off my nose, or anyone elses for that matter! Just stop *****ing in every thread you post to.
(hmmm, I noticed you have around 274 posts. I sense that 95% of them are just you saying-in effect 'no, you're WRONG!!' or 'this game isn't going to let me conquer the world!')

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

My absolute LAST WORD on this matter before I finally consign you to the dust bin.
...
(hmmm, I noticed you have around 274 posts. I sense that 95% of them are just you saying-in effect 'no, you're WRONG!!' or 'this game isn't going to let me conquer the world!')

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

Sincerely, take it easy and don't get mad.

One LAST question before I am dumped into your bin, is my previous post (with the intention to apology) part of the 95%?

Believe me I couldn't care less about how many posts I have made.:cool:

Ah ha, I have missed that few points that Civ4 actually sides the warmonger!
You are really a warmonger, I know it from what you have put.
My name is hclass and I like you:goodjob:

My credentials stretch back a long time...

October 2001 saw the creation of this particular thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=6780

Thanks for the plaudits chaps, my ego is well and truely massaged :D

I am not using any dictionary, so I will just simply put it this way, to me, the word GREAT means BIG and GOOD. In Civ3, no doubt one can have a BIG empire, but it can only contains a lot of rubbish (1 shield cities). So soemthing BIG+STINKY is definitely not GREAT. Now, if Civ4 is going to be harder (than Civ3) in achieving GREAT empire, I really can't imagine what will be the outcome...could it be BIG + BLANKS? I mean, you can still have huge empire, but with very few cities scatter sparsely on it... sigh!

Actually, you CAN have a big and good empire in Civ 3. Corruption is adjustable in Civ 3, and I usually played with low corruption, so that new cities far from the capital weren't a total waste of shields. :D

In addition, in C3C, under communism, you can have an extremely large, extremely productive empire.

Actually, you CAN have a big and good empire in Civ 3. Corruption is adjustable in Civ 3, and I usually played with low corruption, so that new cities far from the capital weren't a total waste of shields. :D



This was my thought as well. IF and it's a huge if, when we actually get civ4 and play it for ourselves, it does turn out that it won't accommodate your gameplay style, just mod it to do so.

I also liked having big empires in civ3, and liked keeping the distant cities I built or conquered, so I just turned the corruption rate down a bit and problem solved. The game is to enjoy and have fun with, there really isn't a 'right' way or 'best' way to play a SP game as long as you enjoy yourself, so change whatever you want if it makes you happy. :)

I really don't understand the negative viewpoint that somehow the game will be terrible. We don't have it yet so it's not really fair to slam so hard what none of us has actually played. The reviews to date seem positive so why don't we give the makers the benefit of the doubt until we have specifics concern gathered from personal experience and then discuss it, and if need be, mod and improve it. ;)

Out of curiousity, I really want to know how many percent will there be a drop in Civ4 sales, if all those who like "conquest or build big empire" give up buying the game?

Many say, only few of those OLD MEN (who has been Civ fans since Civ1 or Civ2) like to play big map, huge empire (be it build or conquest). I have strong impression, most of the OLD MEN and all new comers (I suppose they are real young) are peacemongers and they contribute a big percentage of Civ4 (and probably future ver) sales.

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...
What the hell does that even mean?

The game will be playable. There will be different playstyles that will be viable. Remain calm.

Speaking as an "OLD MAN" 3y3 w111 p0n3 j00 in every way possible. :crazyeye:

In addition, in C3C, under communism, you can have an extremely large, extremely productive empire.

As a conclusion to have a extremely productive empire in Civ3 you have only 2 choices:

1) You must learn to MOD the game so that when your empire is real big, the corruption is still not too much.
(Will corruption be too little in early stage when empire is still small?)

OR

2) You must be a communist!
(Well, this is last choice, otherwise you can only own a small football rather than a big globe, OK?)

My advice is,

1) Accept the above since you are born to like "Big Empire Conqueror or Builder". It is your mother who has to be blamed (not Firaxis or whoever else)

2) Face the reality, nowadays beta tester says 30 cities is very big empire in Civ4.

I want threw most of the thread and got bored of it :lol:

I was concern about all the Conqueror thing... and I want to make sure that I understood correctly!!!!

I'm mainly a conqueror... building HUGE empire on HUGE map kicking everybody of the map!!! I've try being a builder but always fall for my vile instinct of destruction!!!!

From what I read... it easier for small civ to win... so in a sense I'll just be in need to wipe them faster!!! and that's all... requiere more 'tactics' and urgency to hurt those who aim for cultural... therefore.... giving away some reputation
(if it still in civ4) to slow them down!!! but always possible to do it... just more challenge.... that's cool!!!

But I really feel that they want to make it more friendly to the builder.... which I feel are more common within the hardcore gamers...

I'm personnally scared about a lotz in CIV4... but their some feature that worth a try definitly!!!! anyway...

In the end it's just tougher for warmonger like me!!! Am I right????

Why do I have the feeling that if a certain person won the lottery that they would only find a way to complain about the taxes they had to pay now, that moving to a new home would be such a hassle, opening a bank account is so boring, etc., etc.

I'm excited that we all have what appears to be a quality game that can also be adapted (easily I might add) to our particular tastes. Just don't understand the negative vibe. Truly, if you really think it won't suit you - don't buy it! That saves all the complaints and frustrations for everyone. :D

As a conclusion to have a extremely productive empire in Civ3 you have only 2 choices:

1) You must learn to MOD the game so that when your empire is real big, the corruption is still not too much.
(Will corruption be too little in early stage when empire is still small?)

... where "learning to MOD" means: Open the Editor, either change "optimal city number" to a very high value or simply set Corruption to "off" for each government.
That doesn't sound too difficult to me.

2) Face the reality, nowadays beta tester says 30 cities is very big empire in Civ4.

This is only the reality of one beta-tester, who played on standard maps.

We seen previews of a few beta testers that tried to explain many features in the articles. Other testers played multiplayer on small maps. There have been a lot of testers for a long period. I am sure there were warmongers there, but they haven't written a preview.

I havent seen any previews from epic games on huge maps trying conquest only victory. Please wait one more week, get the game and try it out yourself.

Remconius, Mossmonster and grumbler. My advice to you guys is that this is someone who will never, ever be satisfied-no matter what any of us tell him (I love the way mossmonster put it-I heartily concur :D )
Anyway, my advice is that we should simply ignore him-regardless of what he says-and eventually he will drift away to play his RTS and FPS games.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Ppl always complain, or find something they dont like.

But empire maintenance is significantly difficult in Civ3, since an army of 20units of your finest would be instant destroyed if the city flipped, even tough it was a city with like only 2 or 3 pop. A part that really anoyed me and most of the time forced me to rather raze every city i took down to the ground with the prospect of possible rebuilding a city near that location myself.

But small, compact nations where always my favorite since they where still bringing in the cash and where properly developed.

Why does it seem like people had difficulty covering the map in one color? I did it all the time, sure the furthest cities were usually useless, but if you're at that part of the game, with that many cities, then more often than not you can just insta-buy all of the city imps/units you need anyway.

2) You must be a communist!
(Well, this is last choice, otherwise you can only own a small football rather than a big globe, OK?)


And what's wrong with that? Under the rules of C3C, it was the best government for both war and holding a huge empire under peace.

This is only the reality of one beta-tester, who played on standard maps.

This is TRUE. Unless both of us has missed something.

1)We seen previews of a few beta testers that tried to explain many features in the articles. 2)Other testers played multiplayer on small maps. 3)There have been a lot of testers for a long period. 4)I am sure there were warmongers there, but they haven't written a preview.

The first 3 sentences have nothing to do with the title of this thread, neither do they prove anything or support the guess on the last sentence. Until some warmongers beta testers are coming up with some info, I prefer to believe they have found Civ4 screw up the fun "Big empire" gameplay, so they rather avoid talking it.


I havent seen any previews from epic games on huge maps trying conquest only victory.
Me too, and I have a real bad feeling...


Please wait one more week, get the game and try it out yourself.
:)

The first 3 sentences have nothing to do with the title of this thread, neither do they prove anything or support the guess on the last sentence. Until some warmongers beta testers are coming up with some info, I prefer to believe they have found Civ4 screw up the fun "Big empire" gameplay, so they rather avoid talking it.

I am just making the point that our facts are based on a very limited and unbalanced group of beta-testers.

I find it too easy to assume something is screwed up because it's unmentioned in a handful of previews. I prefer to give this game the benefit of the doubt.

hclass - warned for spam. Post deleted.

... where "learning to MOD" means: Open the Editor, either change "optimal city number" to a very high value or simply set Corruption to "off" for each government.
That doesn't sound too difficult to me.


We don't even know if that option is available.
And from what I understand reading the previews/reviews, the game engine itself strongly discourages civ's with a large number of cities.

I myself love playing the plethora of global-based scenarios built by some really talented fans of the game. In fact, I love playing them more than the base game itself. Most of these maps have hundreds of cities on them, and allow for dozens of different games and strategies from one static map.

If I am correct, (and I hope I am wrong), Civ IV is the deathknell of these massive scenarios.

Maybe the mulitple layers of editors will allow the base code to be edited enough to make these types of scenarios possible, which key elements are many cities and large armies. But I doubt the editors will dive that deeply into the code.

However, if the game engine forces a civ to be a max of 8-12 cities before huge inefficiencies kick in, then any globally based scenario that tries to be historically accurate will be rendered a joke.

I suppose we will know in 2 or 3 weeks when the full significance of the changes with Civ IV are more fully realized.

oooohhhhhhhhhhh so a citys production won't be affected AT ALL by capitol distance?

if thats the case I have nothing to grumble about :D thats awesome then. I can deal with the cost (i am usually past the end game when i try this so I don't have any research going).

I really can't wait for civ4! It better come out on my long weekend!!! haha

From what I have read, and I'll be the first to admit I haven't read everything regarding Civ4, city distance from the capital doesn't matter so much as the number of cities total.

The more cities total, the higher upkeep cost per city. Without having played the game I can't tell you if two cities 5 tiles apart would be more productive than two cities 25 tiles apart (assuming equal terrain and only two cities for that empire) but I have yet to see anything that says they wouldn't function nearly identically.

If the above assumption is true it means a civ could have cities vastly more spread out and still have a viable empire, with the exception of having a harder time reinforcing from attack, etc.

As far as I understood it is very possible to conquer and build big empires. What they changed is that instead of adding dead weight (corrupt cities) with little possibility to improve (unless changing to communism) to your empire when conquering, these cities cost you more in the beginning but can be developed to be profitable later on. This means that you have to switch periods where you conquer with periods where you develop conquered lands.

All warmongers have to do is to be cautious to not overextend their empires when conquering, which really adds to strategy (can I afford a campaign or is my infrastructure not ready yet?). I don´t see how the new gameplay makes it impossible to build a huge empire.

Out of curiousity, I really want to know how many percent will there be a drop in Civ4 sales, if all those who like "conquest or build big empire" give up buying the game?

Many say, only few of those OLD MEN (who has been Civ fans since Civ1 or Civ2) like to play big map, huge empire (be it build or conquest). I have strong impression, most of the OLD MEN and all new comers (I suppose they are real young) are peacemongers and they contribute a big percentage of Civ4 (and probably future ver) sales.

For those who like BIG and GREAT empire in Civ (count me in), I think you all can kiss Civ good bye, go find another game...

Why don't you wait and play the game before continuing to spread your doom and gloom? Sheesh, give it a rest, you're ranting about something you don't even know exists yet or not.

Maybe we should start a bet with you to have you eat the game box, like Yin at APolyton, if things aren't all gloom and doom as you constantly post about.:rolleyes:

hclass - warned, again. Your post was deleted for a reason. As was the last one.

Do it again, and you will loose your posting privledges here.

From what I have read, and I'll be the first to admit I haven't read everything regarding Civ4, city distance from the capital doesn't matter so much as the number of cities total.

The more cities total, the higher upkeep cost per city. Without having played the game I can't tell you if two cities 5 tiles apart would be more productive than two cities 25 tiles apart (assuming equal terrain and only two cities for that empire) but I have yet to see anything that says they wouldn't function nearly identically.

If the above assumption is true it means a civ could have cities vastly more spread out and still have a viable empire, with the exception of having a harder time reinforcing from attack, etc.

There is no corruption so all cities are equally productive, but maintenance goes up exponentially. City maintenance has two components, distance from capital and number of cities. Distance from capital is fixed for a city as long as the capital is not relocated. The other component goes up in every city with each additional city.

Of course, unhappy citizens dont work so it might still not be as productive until connected to the trade network.

I'm looking forward to the fact that there will actually be tactics instead of just building a single massive hoard, stacking them together, and walking over all the world with it. A person with a big empire will also have to be a brilliant general in order to defend it.

-NE

So Conquerors will face the same problem that most real empire faced... over extention!!! it good in the end... adds to the game... you'll have too use more tactic and stategy and diplomatic trick to slow everyone down while you're planning on killing all of them!!!!

Some people will never be happy ... but they'll be the first to spend countless hour on it... they just need attention that's all!!!

So soemthing BIG+STINKY is definitely not GREAT. Now, if Civ4 is going to be harder (than Civ3) in achieving GREAT empire, I really can't imagine what will be the outcome...could it be BIG + BLANKS?

hclass, you're basically arguing that it will be impossible to have a large and productive empire in Civ IV. I just don't see it panning out that way. Heck, in Solver's preview he implies that big empires can still be put together, but they're not necessarily the "silver bullet" they were in Civ III -- which is a good thing IMO. I'd wager it can be done, but it'll require a much more methodical approach lest your empire is crushed under its own weight... in other words: no more blitzing huge tracts of land and skating to auto-victory.

-V

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140150

Right, this is my last word on this issue to all those who doubt that a conquest win is impossible. Check out this poll and you can see that at least TWO beta testers have won on conquest. If this is not good enough for you, then all I can say is 'either play it and see for yourself, or simply don't bother buying the game at all!'

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140150

Right, this is my last word on this issue to all those who doubt that a conquest win is impossible. Check out this poll and you can see that at least TWO beta testers have won on conquest. If this is not good enough for you, then all I can say is 'either play it and see for yourself, or simply don't bother buying the game at all!'

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.Not sure those were actually testers answering....
:mischief:

In MP, conquest is a typical victory condition. It does not imply large maps.