stop worrying about the AI

[Roads]

All I read now and for a long time has been about the AI. For years I bought into that thinking if only the AI were smarter...
New thought, forget about the AI. All of us humans can beat it. If not put arms on it, I'll buy it to clean my house.

OK, I'm exaggerating but the AI doesn't have to be the focal point of the game. Don't you love it when your scout finds a resource and you immediately begin figuring out how you can build to get to it? This is situational stuff and there is doubtless unlimited opportunity for development here.

You eventually manage to get to the resource, say it is iron ore, and it is suddenly available, in unlimited quantities to all your cities. What now? Bored so go to war? No. The next problem should be having a city large enough and with a sufficient supply of water to build an ironworks to process the ore (in limited quantity) and getting the ore to that city.

Certainly there are all kinds of situations that can be put into the game. I love Civ but I've found the game to get pretty boring especially
the end game without war. It gets to the point of build city, build courthouse, etc. and all the cities are basically the same. Cities
should develop differently and look different!

Civ doesn't have to be all about war and how smart the AI is.

[King Flevance]

Yes, but in these scenarios, most likely, the AI is too ignorant to know how to do it. lol. Sad but true. You add in complexities like this AFTER you teach the AI how to handle it or else every game will result in the human being way more on top of the AI.

A smarter AI not only means better wars waged by it but also not fouling up its plans when not in war.

[Barney's_Soul]

AI is everything in a single player game like CivIV.

We bought the game, so we can <snip>.

[Ben E Gas]

With no AI, I'd be the only civ in the game. Not much point to that.

[nullspace]

Originally Posted by Roads

You eventually manage to get to the resource, say it is iron ore, and it is suddenly available, in unlimited quantities to all your cities. What now? Bored so go to war? No. The next problem should be having a city large enough and with a sufficient supply of water to build an ironworks to process the ore (in limited quantity) and getting the ore to that city.

This doesn't sound like fun to me. It's a simple problem with a single solution that requires a lot of clicking to solve. It's not strategy, it's micromanagement. I'd prefer to get my challenge from competing against the AIs, than from fighting against the game mechanics. It's not supposed to be challenging to build a functioning civ. The challenge comes from building a civ that beats your opponents. This requires that you observe your enemies, predict their actions, and devise a strategy to counter them. It's much more interesting than managing a little supply-line problem.

[Roads]

OK folks, some clarification here. I didn't mean no AI. I meant strategy in the tradition of RRT1 and look how long ago that was programmed. However don't assume I am unappreciative of Civ IV. The addition of religion and culture has made the game for me, it has been great fun.

The reason for this post was wondering how many people feel about strategy games the way I do, that is complexity over simplicity or just playing to beat the AI.

[King Flevance]

Culture was a nice addition into the series in 3. Religion is almost moot IMO. As there really isn't much to it. I enjoy some complexity. But the example you provided is unnecessary complexity. I would like for the economic model to have something a bit more complex to it than its current model. Complexity doesn't always have to be hard to understand but could just mean it is dependant on more than a single source.

Playing to beat the AI is almost nonsense in civ. The cheats are a little rediculous even though I see why they are there. To play a diety huge map with raging barbs, you NEED a tile with at least 2 hammers on it on your initial load up of the map and you NEED hunting so that you can get to archery fast enough before the barbs come. Because your archers need promotions ASAP to handle the axes that will be at your door at least by 2000 B.C. On the other hand this is merely to make up for the stupidity of the AI.

I think this time around the game got way too simple way too fast.

[theimmortal1]

I'd like to have more of a "sim city" aspect of civ. Keep the wars the way they are (probably make the AI smarter) but allow for more customization of the cities.

[Roads]

nullspace I'll concede what I have in mind is micro management. That doesn't mean it has to be boring. It is only boring if it is repetitive, has no real reward and there are no choices of which way to go - if it is just something that has to be done. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me the AI has one tactic, the same one it's had since Civ I. It is box you in with their cities. Of course to my way of thinking a city placed within what I consider my future border is an act of war and will be dealt with as such.
Well not always, sometimes my culture can take care of unwanted neighbors if their city was built in a good location. Religion is not moot.

[King Flevance]

As it stands, religion is very moot. If you found one it is only to have your economic backbone be tied to it which makes no real sense. Governments do not tax religous organizations and should only pay you money under a theocracy where the church and state become one. Also, the AI is a complete moron about it and is WAY too easily swayed because of it whereas the player couldn't care less what religion you have if you are in their way. Heck, if you have the Holy city to my religion, 4/5 chances I am going to invade you for it. Multiple religions do not cause turmoil, your only real reason to keep religion out is because of spies which is laughable at best. Hardly any aspect of religion in the game holds any real value and to top it off it makes the computer make stupid decisions and priovides the founders an economic backbone stronger than someone who has been working to set up trade routes and cottages or markets in the early game. In later game of course you have plenty of time to do all this too. I don't see why they put it in personally. It's a handicap more than a strategic element.

[Roads]

Immortal I agree. I could get into some serious city building and wouldn't it be nice to automatically remember which city Denver is because it is so different of San Francisco as well as all the other cities.

Maybe one of the problems with doing stuff like that is multiplayer. I'm sure for that you need a simplified game. I would dearly love to see two versions of the game. I know I will never ever play multiplayer, sometimes I take 30 mins or so for one turn, getting my roads to look good is not always an easy task.

King I find it real hard to argue with you on the subject of church and state. Of course you are right if you think in terms of RL. It is ridiculuous for money from religion going to the treasury for anything other than a theocracy. Unfortunately the AI seems to take care of that, most of the time I see my gold drop by 2 the second my missionary is created. That's pretty sad. But religion can have a huge impact on culture with cathedrals. Nice to see the borders expand.
Not only culture but I build monasteries whenever I can, +10% science ain't bad if your city is already producing a considerable number of beakers.

[Tonifranz]

Originally Posted by King Flevance

As it stands, religion is very moot. If you found one it is only to have your economic backbone be tied to it which makes no real sense. Governments do not tax religous organizations and should only pay you money under a theocracy where the church and state become one. Also, the AI is a complete moron about it and is WAY too easily swayed because of it whereas the player couldn't care less what religion you have if you are in their way. Heck, if you have the Holy city to my religion, 4/5 chances I am going to invade you for it. Multiple religions do not cause turmoil, your only real reason to keep religion out is because of spies which is laughable at best. Hardly any aspect of religion in the game holds any real value and to top it off it makes the computer make stupid decisions and priovides the founders an economic backbone stronger than someone who has been working to set up trade routes and cottages or markets in the early game. In later game of course you have plenty of time to do all this too. I don't see why they put it in personally. It's a handicap more than a strategic element.

This post is about religion in the game, not in real life.

Well, when I play, I'd rather have religion, because of the benefits of the civics. Playing Organized religion would have faster build times for buildings, and having theocracy would have me stronger units, while having pacifism would have me more great people, while having free religion would have me more science. Religion also gives happiness, and gives culture, especially if you have the religious buildings. It powers up my economy early by giving me a positive gold per turn if I have a shrine, and gives a tremendous amount of gold late game with buildings like grocer, market, bank, and the Wall Street wonder. I can also have tons of gold by building the Spiral Minaret, and more research by building the University of Sankore. My early science is also partly speeded by monasteries. I can see the units stationed on cities with my state religion, and it allows me to predict the attitudes of other leaders.

So how is that moot? If religion is removed, it would drastically change gameplay, and I would have to dump some of my tested strategies. I would have to find some other ways to make up the lost benefits religion gives to me.

Religion in the game is loosely based on the real world, but the key word is loosely. It does not mirror the Real world religion in the exact same way, but then again, it should not be. It should be tailored to gameplay, and the way Firaxis implemented religion does that neatly.

Just like other elements of the game, religion is a tool that the player can use to achieve victory. As such, it is a very significant tool. To call it moot is to ignore a whole lot of elements that could influence the course of a game.

[King Flevance]

Originally Posted by Tonifranz

So how is that moot? If religion is removed, it would drastically change gameplay, and I would have to dump some of my tested strategies. I would have to find some other ways to make up the lost benefits religion gives to me.

Basically, you would be playing Civ 1, 2, or 3. Back when your economy depended on what you built and focused on instead of just knowing you are alright if you can found a religion early.

Religion in the game is loosely based on the real world, but the key word is loosely. It does not mirror the Real world religion in the exact same way, but then again, it should not be. It should be tailored to gameplay, and the way Firaxis implemented religion does that neatly.

I am all about gameplay over realism. And this is why I say that religion is unbalanced. IN a multi-player game, this system is fine. But when an AI comes in they are completely retarded. Then throwing in that you can have a horrible economic system and be rolling in cash because of religion. There is no penalty for religion in the game thus it is unbalanced. There is no consequence, except of course if you are the AI and have tunnel vision because of it.

Just like other elements of the game, religion is a tool that the player can use to achieve victory.

But not to achieve a defeat. There is not even a strategy available to try and go without religion because there is no downside at all.

[Tonifranz]

Originally Posted by King Flevance

Basically, you would be playing Civ 1, 2, or 3. Back when your economy depended on what you built and focused on instead of just knowing you are alright if you can found a religion early.

The main downsides of religion is on how you use it. For example, going for early religions in the game could cost you, as the AI frequently could beat you to it in the higher levels, and you could miss out on early important techs for example, bronze working. Going to an early religion on higher levels unless you start with mysticism would leave you meat for barbarians, for example. I even lost a noble game to barbarians because I went for religions instead of going for bronze working. I was massacred by barbarian axemen.

Having a state religion could leave you isolated if the other civs have different religions, and if you don't adopt a state religion to maintain good relations with other civs, you miss out on the early civics.

Originally Posted by King Flevance

But not to achieve a defeat. There is not even a strategy available to try and go without religion because there is no downside at all.

My main contention is your statement that religion is moot in the game. It is not, and in fact very important.

Whether or not it is balanced is another issue.

But it is not moot.

Saying religion is moot because it has many advantages and almost no disadvantages is like saying axemen is moot, or warfare at lower levels is moot, or building roads is moot. All of them most players do or build for the benefits.

Heck, there are tons of things in civ 4 that have benefits and have no downsides. Roads for example, have huge benefits, but almost no downside. The same for railroads in later eras. Or mines on hills, or camps on beavers, or pastures on horses. All of these gives enormous benefits to the human player, and no negative effect. Currently, there is no viable strategy available to try and go without roads, or mines, or culture for that matter, or pastures on horses, as there is no downside. And it is almost always beneficial to have adopt some sort of civics, than to have none at all. So do religion.

On having any religion, not just the one you founded, is unquestionably beneficial.

But founding one, especially the early ones, is not beneficial all the time.

[Roads]

I had not won a space race victory so I set up a custom game. All victories were set off except space race and set opponents to none. My thinking was I would be rolling in cash and could quickly run thru the game. It did not work out that way, not by a long shot. As I stated in an earlier post, the AI takes care of the money. It simply ate it up as fast as I could make it. I finally finished the thing around 2000 AD and it burned me out on Civ for awhile. BTW I think the AI cheats on the advance turns as well as the money. Toward the end of the game I had over 1500 beakers and was still having to wait 9 turns for some of the advances....the ones I needed of course.

[King Flevance]

Sorry for not replying for a while but I have been on Guild Wars alot recently due to the recently released Nightfall expansion. I actually had replied to this once and the site messed up and made me have to entirely redo my post.

Originally Posted by Tonifranz

The main downsides of religion is on how you use it. For example, going for early religions in the game could cost you, as the AI frequently could beat you to it in the higher levels, and you could miss out on early important techs for example, bronze working. Going to an early religion on higher levels unless you start with mysticism would leave you meat for barbarians, for example. I even lost a noble game to barbarians because I went for religions instead of going for bronze working. I was massacred by barbarian axemen.

Actually, the main downside to religion is not having it. Going for early religions in the game is not wise unless you are in a good position to do so. (Good commerce backing your research, starting with Mysticism, and such.) I would rank spiritual as the second best trait, if not tied with financial in vanilla.

Having a state religion could leave you isolated if the other civs have different religions, and if you don't adopt a state religion to maintain good relations with other civs, you miss out on the early civics.

A state religion gives you access to early civics period. So long as you focus on military at all you can risk being isolated from AI religion mainstream. Because a human understands how to utilize their units and therefore needs a little less of them for warfare.

My main contention is your statement that religion is moot in the game. It is not, and in fact very important.

Whether or not it is balanced is another issue.

But it is not moot.

All it does is restrict happiness. It is the new "luxury" tax slider as it serves the same purpose in the early game - only better. Only you have to focus on your tech tree to ensure you get to use it. I thought this was the stuff they were trying to pull away from. I personally would rather just have a luxury tax slider back. (I know it is now the culture slider but that slider comes in too late and is mostly only valuable for a cultural type victory.)

Saying religion is moot because it has many advantages and almost no disadvantages is like saying axemen is moot, or warfare at lower levels is moot, or building roads is moot. All of them most players do or build for the benefits.

Actually axemen was moot for a while because they nulled out other early unit types. Thus took away the variety approach behind the entire point of the new combat system. So yes, axemen used to be moot and still are if you own vanilla. Warfare depends on who wins so will never be moot.

Heck, there are tons of things in civ 4 that have benefits and have no downsides. Roads for example, have huge benefits, but almost no downside. The same for railroads in later eras. Or mines on hills, or camps on beavers, or pastures on horses. All of these gives enormous benefits to the human player, and no negative effect. Currently, there is no viable strategy available to try and go without roads, or mines, or culture for that matter, or pastures on horses, as there is no downside. And it is almost always beneficial to have adopt some sort of civics, than to have none at all. So do religion.

First off, you are comparing an aspect like religion to a fundamental like tile improvements. There may be no strategy to go without mines, roads, farms, etc. But there are strategies based on which ones to build over other ones. Not so with religion.

Culture has a victory attached to it. Not so with religion.The aspect of relgious civics could be removed with religion and replaced with cultural ones that effect cities with theatres, colloseums, etc. instead of religion in the cities.

On having any religion, not just the one you founded, is unquestionably beneficial.

But founding one, especially the early ones, is not beneficial all the time.

Like when you go for an early religion and don't mess with spreading it? Why would you even bother going after it then? I wouldn't mind a further explanation on this.