Domination victory impossible? And world congress a tool against the human player?

I don't see how what I'm saying here is so complicated? If it takes 350 turns to fully explore an ideology tree and Hiawatha launches his spaceship in 250 then you didn't even get close to getting to use the new feature and a situation like that would make all the improvements in this expansion for naught. That's all I'm trying to say here.

We haven't seen how we actually get tenets yet, so it might be a bit premature to say things like that. Still though, you're completely right; I was utterly unaware of the state of Standard speed. T300 Info Era? I don't even know how you'd play that. Probably have the whole game done in a few hours. :crazyeye:
 
Doesn't really matter what turn number you win the game at. What's important is the amount of turns you have from entering the Modern era to winning the game. That count should be consistent for a particular VC whether you win at turn 300 or turn 250. For a science game, a reasonable estimate would be 50 turns from entering the Modern era to finishing the space ship. For diplomatic, it would be probably 30-40 turns. Culture is basically over by the time you hit modern unless you have very good bpt. Domination is generally over before you hit modern unless you're purposely playing a long game or you're in Deity.
 
Doesn't really matter what turn number you win the game at. What's important is the amount of turns you have from entering the Modern era to winning the game. That count should be consistent for a particular VC whether you win at turn 300 or turn 250. For a science game, a reasonable estimate would be 50 turns from entering the Modern era to finishing the space ship. For diplomatic, it would be probably 30-40 turns. Culture is basically over by the time you hit modern unless you have very good bpt. Domination is generally over before you hit modern unless you're purposely playing a long game or you're in Deity.

In BNK the culture victory is only really going to start at Modern, because that's the point where you can start to generate tourism in significant quantities.
 
In BNK the culture victory is only really going to start at Modern, because that's the point where you can start to generate tourism in significant quantities.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. There'll certainly be a boost in the later eras to Tourism but early on you'll still have tourism from Wonders and Great Works which will all by amplified by shared trade routes, religion and open borders. The real trick to a culture win in BNW, I suspect, will be a big discovery effort to uncover all Civs and dig sites, a rush to Universities and Archaeology and a GP-heavy focus (which are all saved until you have a place to store their great work) while playing nice with the AIs.

Looking at the tech tree I really think that Tourism is going to start to spike upwards from Industrial onwards (when you get Archaeology and start digging up stuff) rather than Modern.
 
In BNK the culture victory is only really going to start at Modern, because that's the point where you can start to generate tourism in significant quantities.

If they don't change the space race I can see a problem here when you are going for a culture victory . By the time you increased you're tourisme some Ai will launch there space ship just like current culture victory . But who knows maybe its more flexible and it takes less time to set up like a space victory
 
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There'll certainly be a boost in the later eras to Tourism but early on you'll still have tourism from Wonders and Great Works which will all by amplified by shared trade routes, religion and open borders. The real trick to a culture win in BNW, I suspect, will be a big discovery effort to uncover all Civs and dig sites, a rush to Universities and Archaeology and a GP-heavy focus (which are all saved until you have a place to store their great work) while playing nice with the AIs.

Looking at the tech tree I really think that Tourism is going to start to spike upwards from Industrial onwards (when you get Archaeology and start digging up stuff) rather than Modern.

A Great Work gives you 2 tourism, the Eiffel Tower gives you 12. A Hotel in your capital might generate 20 or so. Then there's Broadway and the Airport, which we don't really know what they do yet. Yes, Tourism starts ramping up in Industrial, but it will triple or so in Modern. And playing nice with the AI is going to be harder. The bonus of two free tenets for the first civ to adapt a particular ideology pretty much guarantees that the top three civs will all have different ideologies.
 
A Great Work gives you 2 tourism, the Eiffel Tower gives you 12. A Hotel in your capital might generate 20 or so. Then there's Broadway and the Airport, which we don't really know what they do yet. Yes, Tourism starts ramping up in Industrial, but it will triple or so in Modern. And playing nice with the AI is going to be harder. The bonus of two free tenets for the first civ to adapt a particular ideology pretty much guarantees that the top three civs will all have different ideologies.

There's only one Eiffel Tower, there are a great many more Great Works to be had, stored and their bonus multiplied from an earlier point in the game.

The Hotel gives '50% of the Culture from World Wonders, Natural Wonders, and Improvements (Landmarks, Moai, Chateau) is added to the Tourism output of the city. Tourism output from Great Works +50%.'. That's from Arioch's site. There's no flat-rate boost. My guess, based on what we know so far, is that few buildings are going to give flat-rate boosts and that they want you to focus on Great Works. Could be entirely wrong but that would stack with the Hotel being a multiplier, not an additive.

Playing nice with the AI in the later eras will, potentially, be harder (but will almost certainly be so when they realize that your tourism is beating their culture). Earlier on though you'll have some new boosts from the WC (picking resolutions other Civs like etc) and more prevalent trade routes diplo bonuses, in addition to the old stuff like shared religion and so on. Which is to say nothing of the fact that they've said the AI is now less nuts, though I'm taking an unhealthy dose of salt with that.
 
There's only one Eiffel Tower, there are a great many more Great Works to be had, stored and their bonus multiplied from an earlier point in the game.

The Hotel gives '50% of the Culture from World Wonders, Natural Wonders, and Improvements (Landmarks, Moai, Chateau) is added to the Tourism output of the city. Tourism output from Great Works +50%.'. That's from Arioch's site. There's no flat-rate boost. My guess, based on what we know so far, is that few buildings are going to give flat-rate boosts and that they want you to focus on Great Works. Could be entirely wrong but that would stack with the Hotel being a multiplier, not an additive.

Playing nice with the AI in the later eras will, potentially, be harder (but will almost certainly be so when they realize that your tourism is beating their culture). Earlier on though you'll have some new boosts from the WC (picking resolutions other Civs like etc) and more prevalent trade routes diplo bonuses, in addition to the old stuff like shared religion and so on. Which is to say nothing of the fact that they've said the AI is now less nuts, though I'm taking an unhealthy dose of salt with that.

I didn't say a Hotel gives a flat rate boost to Tourism, but if you have a couple of Wonders and Landmarks in your capital, 20 Tourism from just the Hotel is not that far away.
 
Hahaha. T300 is the Information Era? Wow.

Well in that case we're really debating the wrong thing, aren't we? The problem of the late-game additions having a brief shelf-life has nothing to do with where they come in the game but rather the speed of research on Standard.

Yes, which was my original point of what are they going to do to slow down the game (eras forcing, tech costs, AI penalties, etc.??) to not only get human players more into the late game and more importantly, to reduce AI competitiveness so that you can enjoy all these cool new toys?

For the record, most strategists play on standard speed - it is exploitive to play on Marathon. At higher difficulties, you have to be efficient or else the AI opponents could beat you and end the game, particularly if you are playing cultural or slow to get your armies up or having too low of a science rate.
 
Veneke, you seem to be missing the point that the AI will often win around turn 300, especially on higher difficulties. If you need to play past that to fully access the new features than any game in which you are playing to win will only brush over them.
I can't see why we'd assume that the AI will behave exactly the same way in BNW that it does in Vanilla or G&K. Even if you don't account for changes being made to the AI itself (which they're doing), the sheer number of new options would change how it works.

It's a definite shortcoming that the AI doesn't seem to really pursue Culture or Diplomatic victories right now. But taking a data point like "AI wins at t300" from the current version and applying it to something we haven't seen yet isn't the best reasoning.

And if conditions cause the AI to sometimes pursue a quicker victory and sometimes a slower one, that's an overall improvement, not an "artificial slowdown."
 
legendary start only gives you extra bonus resources like stone weath dear and more luxuries resources!! Not strategic resources

Right so its still based on luck, which is rarely in the players favor. Unless you choose strategic balance.
 
Well, I still reckon that if they were slowing things down then they'd have mentioned that by now. That seems like a far too big a change to keep under wraps when other things have been let slip.

The Standard versus Marathon argument has been going on for years; it's rarely useful and usually involves more than a few absurd claims. 'Strategists' though is a rather lofty title for gamers playing strategy games.
 
Well, I still reckon that if they were slowing things down then they'd have mentioned that by now. That seems like a far too big a change to keep under wraps when other things have been let slip.
I don't recall them saying "We're slowing down the early game" when G&K was in the preview stage, even though that's exactly what they did. Instead, they emphasized stuff like a bigger tech tree (= slower early game), more eras (= slower game overall), changes to siege units and more varied AI (= fewer early-game extermination rushes = slower game). I think a lot of what we've seen from BNW gives us reason to think they're doing something similar.

Frankly, though, they may not really need to slow it down as much as they need to give you more choices in the late game. The problem now is not so much that you speed through it, it's that you're basically on autopilot by that point. If there are more options in t200-300, then the assumption that the AI either wins or loses in t325 on the nose is irrelevant even without an "artiificial" slowdown.
 
Yes, which was my original point of what are they going to do to slow down the game (eras forcing, tech costs, AI penalties, etc.??) to not only get human players more into the late game and more importantly, to reduce AI competitiveness so that you can enjoy all these cool new toys?

If tech costs go up that will make the AI more competitive at high levels because they get a percentage-based handicap. The tech pace will be more significantly adjusted for the player than the AI.

I don't recall them saying "We're slowing down the early game" when G&K was in the preview stage, even though that's exactly what they did. Instead, they emphasized stuff like a bigger tech tree (= slower early game), more eras (= slower game overall), changes to siege units and more varied AI (= fewer early-game extermination rushes = slower game). I think a lot of what we've seen from BNW gives us reason to think they're doing something similar.

Frankly, though, they may not really need to slow it down as much as they need to give you more choices in the late game. The problem now is not so much that you speed through it, it's that you're basically on autopilot by that point. If there are more options in t200-300, then the assumption that the AI either wins or loses in t325 on the nose is irrelevant even without an "artificial" slowdown.

This. Since 1) the late game will (hopefully) be more volatile and less predetermined, and 2) there will be more things to do in the last 100 turns the amount of actual time spent playing the game in the later eras will rise, regardless of number of turns - ie, we won't just be hitting "end turn" over and over - it will seem longer.
 
Reading on, I too would like to see the AI win better at everything besides space. And to win more effectively overall would mean more wins by the AI prior to Atomic age. The goal all along (and MadDjinn agreed with it) is to make the higher difficulties more difficult, thus forcing us to step back down and what it would take to be more effective. The fun is in the challenge, like the numerous immortal+ challenge games popping up in the strategy forum.
 
Veneke, strategists are those that play to win and learning to do so effectively and efficiently, with minimum exploits, no cheats and no mods - at any difficulty levels. It is simply in contrast to the role players or those not playing to win. Strategist is probably not a good term, just wanted to make a differentiation which plays into this discussion of how these new elements come more into play knowing that most games would be done by then.
 
I don't recall them saying "We're slowing down the early game" when G&K was in the preview stage, even though that's exactly what they did. Instead, they emphasized stuff like a bigger tech tree (= slower early game), more eras (= slower game overall), changes to siege units and more varied AI (= fewer early-game extermination rushes = slower game). I think a lot of what we've seen from BNW gives us reason to think they're doing something similar.

...

That's kinda my point. The tech tree seems to be largely the same and the war AI is apparently being left alone the only indications that we've seen of an AI change yet have been in diplomacy, which I expect to do nothing to alter the pace of the game. For BNW what we're getting is basically better diplomatic AI, three new mechanics (WC, trade routes and tourism), some wonders, civs, units etc etc. Of those, only the WC and Tourism have any real potential to slow the game down in the manner you're describing. The WC is unlikely to slow the game down much, if at all. Tourism is, admittedly, a bit of a wild card here because until we see it in action there's no way to really tell if it'll cause you to pay more attention in the late game.

Veneke, strategists are those that play to win and learning to do so effectively and efficiently, with minimum exploits, no cheats and no mods - at any difficulty levels. It is simply in contrast to the role players or those not playing to win. Strategist is probably not a good term, just wanted to make a differentiation which plays into this discussion of how these new elements come more into play knowing that most games would be done by then.

It remains a lofty title. Is that actually considered the accepted term for people who are more interested in beating the AI than playing the game? Last time I was seriously browsing these boards I'm pretty sure they were called gamers (as opposed to the other crowd who were role-players).

At any rate, I don't think anyone could disagree with the difficulty level being upped although you'd wonder how exactly they could do that - the AI's difficulties in combat essentially stem from 1UPT, which isn't changing, and given the numerous attempts at fixing diplomacy I can't see how we'll see much improvement there either. To go back to the OP, I suppose it's possible that the WC could be used as a tool against the human player by trying to use the WC to boost diplomatic relations between AIs so that as the player tries winning there's more of a concerted effort amongst the AIs to take you on. Not quite what OP had in mind, but a much more realistic prospect I imagine.
 
Top Bottom