Lexicus
Deity
rah said:
Exactly .I mean, you're talking about a pretty epic war, a mad rush to the capital of an AI who should offer a military challenge (because if they don't, why didn't you wipe them out 200 years ago?)
If you could improve Civ 4 in any way, how would you do it?
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
Exactly .I mean, you're talking about a pretty epic war, a mad rush to the capital of an AI who should offer a military challenge (because if they don't, why didn't you wipe them out 200 years ago?)
Sometimes I didn't because my last 20 games were all domination victories, and I just wanted to win a different way and had my heart set on Space. (expediency doesn't always rule)
And unless I launch and an AI declares and tries to take me, I have no problems just hitting enter 15 times without doing anything else so it only takes a few minutes to end it.
And yeah, the culture countdown can be the worst especially if you're going for a better date and looking to see if you can do a little tweak to save a turn. Not sure of your calculation and redoing it frequently to verify (or when you're counting on that last great artist when it's a 95%er)
And unless I launch and an AI declares and tries to take me, I have no problems just hitting enter 15 times without doing anything else so it only takes a few minutes to end it.
And yeah, the culture countdown can be the worst especially if you're going for a better date and looking to see if you can do a little tweak to save a turn. Not sure of your calculation and redoing it frequently to verify (or when you're counting on that last great artist when it's a 95%er)
Lexicus
Deity
rah said:
Well, yeah, if you've already got the game in the bag and are just enjoying the sandbox that's a whole 'nother thing. But Tim's question suggested that he doesn't enjoy that, so...I dunno. Maybe I'm being too presumptuous.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I enjoy the sandbox earlier in the game, but for some reason about the modern era it just seems tedious. Once victory is in sight I mostly want to just get it over with.
6K Man
Bureaucrat
If you feel youve won the game by pressing "Launch" why not just give yourself permission to exit and start a new game (unless you care about setting personal bests or things like that)?
I like stupidly big maps, but I wouldnt play them if I hadnt gotten over the notion that I have to achieve some kind of victory condition before I allow myself to start a new game. If I have 45 cities and the nearest AI has 50 and a bit more power than I do, Ill go stomp them and itll be a fun challenge. But after that, if I have ~90 cities and nobody else has 30? Declare victory and start a new game, instead of conquering 100 more cities to trip the domination limit, or teching ~30 more techs for Space. Those things are boring, IMO.
My personal victory conditions:
I have triple anyone elses cities? I win
I have double anyone elses score? I win
Im 5 techs ahead of anyone else and double anyone elses power? I win
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I agree. If I get to actually launching the ship it was at least close enough that there was something going on, and while I hate waiting out the fifteen moves I'm so close at that point I can't bring myself to call it a win and quit either. <sigh>
Just for the record, right now I'm flailing around looking for something to play...and thinking that I'll wind up starting a new CivIV game before I find anything that really holds my attention.
Just for the record, right now I'm flailing around looking for something to play...and thinking that I'll wind up starting a new CivIV game before I find anything that really holds my attention.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Well, since you've brought it up Tu2n, there does appear to be a new MOO over on the Steam store that my youngest brought to my attention. Think I'll do some fact checking and stuff and see what's what
.
Lennier
Emperor
Is MoO IV better than the abomination that MoO III was?
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
No clue bro. I'll post my findings once I'm done with the info search after work tonight. It does have my interest piqued however.
Make sure that you read the Steam reviews. I was thinking about buying it until I read them. It seems there are issues...
Re. improving Civ 4, what about changing goody huts so you could choose what result you got. In different situations gold, maps, units, workers, experience, or even barbs for farming would be useful, it would just need the options to be broadly balanced to equivalent value. Interesting decision then instead of crapshoot!
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Another small thing that just reminded me of itself...
Great people, particularly great generals, should be named appropriately for their empire. It isn't as bad when great scientist Galileo founds an academy in London, because he's gone and can be forgotten. But having Erwin Rommel lead my Ethiopian forces against the Germans in an ages long war is disconcerting.
Great people, particularly great generals, should be named appropriately for their empire. It isn't as bad when great scientist Galileo founds an academy in London, because he's gone and can be forgotten. But having Erwin Rommel lead my Ethiopian forces against the Germans in an ages long war is disconcerting.
Drakarska
Epic Dadness
Heh, You got to love the irony though. Was playing as the USA on a GEM TSL, Had a rather enjoyable game that was mimicking WWII where allies and enemies were similar, when a wave of GG's start hitting. Brits get Yamamoto, France gets Rommel, I get Custer ( I wasn't exactly sure if that was a good sign or not at the time), and Germany? Well, they get Patton... I'm pretty sure the AI was trolling me at that point.
One more thing from me; I would rebalance the game with plains being 1
2
Currently there's a very clear order where grassland is simply better than plains, even for production. By buffing plains there's a much better trade-off, but you'll need to fix a lot of minor stuff (like 2-hammer city tiles shouldn't be the norm).
2 Currently there's a very clear order where grassland is simply better than plains, even for production. By buffing plains there's a much better trade-off, but you'll need to fix a lot of minor stuff (like 2-hammer city tiles shouldn't be the norm).
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
What is the difference between Galileo and Rommel, in this example, besides you feeling uncomfortable with someone from Nazi Germany?
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
One more thing from me; I would rebalance the game with plains being 1
Currently there's a very clear order where grassland is simply better than plains, even for production. By buffing plains there's a much better trade-off, but you'll need to fix a lot of minor stuff (like 2-hammer city tiles shouldn't be the norm).
I disagree, Slavery should just be nerfed. Imo if Serfdom or Caste System gave an extra yield for farms that would go a long way of making plains more valuable.
MyOtherName
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,526
Green being better than brown for production isn't even just a slavery thing.
e.g. throughout much of the game (particularly when you have the bonuses to make workshops reasonable tiles), you can generally trade one food for up to two hammers by adjusting your tile improvements, so starting with a 2 base tile gives superior results to starting with 11 or 2.
Or even early game; a food resource and 5-6 grassland hills makes for an early game production powerhouse (especially if there's a strategic resource thrown in). Plains hills are much less effective.
Plains are great to have when you have too much food. But gameplay has developed to the point where it's hard to actually have too much.
e.g. throughout much of the game (particularly when you have the bonuses to make workshops reasonable tiles), you can generally trade one food for up to two hammers by adjusting your tile improvements, so starting with a 2
base tile gives superior results to starting with 11 or 2.Or even early game; a food resource and 5-6 grassland hills makes for an early game production powerhouse (especially if there's a strategic resource thrown in). Plains hills are much less effective.
Plains are great to have when you have too much food. But gameplay has developed to the point where it's hard to actually have too much.
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
Green being better than brown for production isn't even just a slavery thing.
e.g. throughout much of the game (particularly when you have the bonuses to make workshops reasonable tiles), you can generally trade one food for up to two hammers by adjusting your tile improvements, so starting with a 2
Or even early game; a food resource and 5-6 grassland hills makes for an early game production powerhouse (especially if there's a strategic resource thrown in). Plains hills are much less effective.
Plains are great to have when you have too much food. But gameplay has developed to the point where it's hard to actually have too much.
Still, by that logic the yields of tundra, desert and ice should also be changed. I don't see why Plains and Grasslands should be equally good anyway.
My thinking is that if e.g. Serfdom gave +1 Production or Commerce or maybe even Food to farms, it would be a decent civic to pick if you have lots of plains or not much food in general. As it currently stands Serfdom is completely useless, and both Slavery and Caste System are only good if you have plenty of food. Serfdom should imo be the civic you pick if you don't have lots of food, e.g. because you have lots of Plains, so you have to spam farms everywhere to make use of your terrain.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I thought I made it clear, and it has nothing to do with Nazi Germany. A great scientist is usually "on the board" for a couple turns, at most. Usually my first great general is a supermedic and gets protected so they are in the game for the duration.
But farms doesn't need to be stronger. They're already the default tile improvement being more attractive than cottages in most cases.
Also this wouldn't really change the balance between the grass and plains unless you intended the buff to only apply to plains-farms.
I really don't think you can take it that far. The argument is not that all terrain should be equal, only that a bit more diversity would be better. And while you always can settle better land than tundra, desert and snow you sometimes have to accept plains. And plains is something you get in your capital. Desert, snow and tundra doesn't appear in capital(except for oasis and floodplains).
Currently we have one good terrain type and the rest is marginal/junk you really don't want to work. I don't think its good that the first thing players think when they roll a map is "yuck, plains".
Even with my buffed plains a fish would only give 10
(working 2 plains mine) vs 12 with grass mines. However with plains only needing 3 pop rather than 5 it wins. And I like that. I like plains being better for production - if you can find the food.Similar threads
