Scientific Victory

Perhaps there could be a scientific victory where the first to reach future tech wins.

Actually, iI think victory at the first Future Tech is too early. It would make the classic SS Victory time-inefficent. Maybe something like FT 10 or so would add more of incentive to go the SS road. It would need balancing anyway or have to be a Special Game option like the ones in Civ 3.

aimeeandbeatles said:

Perhaps there could be a scientific victory where the first to reach future tech wins.

Click to expand...

So, in Monarch, Deity or Emperor, you want the computer AI player to win then!? Great idea.... let's put it in.

Scientific victory would be a good option. At the moment, it is kind of covered by Space Race, but I like the idea of having this victory type. The only problem I can see is that it would be near impossible to win, unless the AI's anti-human conspiracy is fixed. If it was instituted with the game as it is now, I think everyone would have to move down a difficulty. And then there are the leaders that are suited to tech-whoring. They would have to be balanced somehow.

I think that there should not be a scientic victory. Or not put as it is, with few elements not to say none.

I even think that space race, diplomatic and religious victory should go away, at least in the form they nowadays are in Civ4. Culture victory should be made somewhat more easy, or pretty different. Maybe involving culture fights, but not in the sense of Civ3/4, more globally, with a more global culture than a geographically restricted one. Like simulating the influence of the American culture (way of life but also liberalism) on all the countries of the globe. (with flight, and particularly radio or TV)

Why get rid of space race and diplomatic victory? Maybe they could be transformed into some better model, but they are pretty intrinsic aspects of the game. I wouldn't like to see them go.

Maybe because UNO is about to deal with diplomacy that i don't like because I do not understand it in Civ4. For example, how comes that Frederick is favourable to Isabella and vice versa in the early game when then do not share the same religion? That is a mystery for me, and largely defavourable to the player.

About Space Race, it is because this always favors the tech leader. This is not more anything else than a scientific victory (a little delayed), which i am not for. Ways to win should be way more diversified than in Civ4. For example, Space Race and imaginary Science Victory does not let the score to speak. Score that should be influenced by many more things as it is now in Civ4. (because within Civ4 model, that is grosso modo the bigger civ that have the bigger score)

About culture win, this is an objective you can't pick during the course of the game. You have to start a game and say yourself "I will try for culture victory", because that is so hard to achieve one that you have to do it since the start. I would want a culture victory that implies that we can start it in the modern age. After all, we could say in reality that America won by culture, yet they appeared only 200 or 300 years before. I think too that cultural victory, at the image of score victory, should take into account a lot more varied factors.

And i would also like some new ways to win other than domination/space race (tweaked)/culture (with varied factor, particularly in early times)/time (score)/conquest (which is not realist due to the domination victory).

The problem being that I have no clue of how to do it. Maybe victories by points, which i suggested already in those forums.

Naokaukodem said:

Maybe because UNO is about to deal with diplomacy that i don't like because I do not understand it in Civ4. For example, how comes that Frederick is favourable to Isabella and vice versa in the early game when then do not share the same religion? That is a mystery for me, and largely defavourable to the player.

Click to expand...

Diplomacy is, literally, formulaic. There are formulas determining the diplomacy considerations of each leader (each leader has different diplomacy modifiers). I'm sure you could find them on this forum if you are having trouble.

About Space Race, it is because this always favors the tech leader. This is not more anything else than a scientific victory (a little delayed), which i am not for. Ways to win should be way more diversified than in Civ4. For example, Space Race and imaginary Science Victory does not let the score to speak. Score that should be influenced by many more things as it is now in Civ4. (because within Civ4 model, that is grosso modo the bigger civ that have the bigger score)

Click to expand...

It is entirely possible to not be the tech leader and win a Space Race victory. For instance, if you have more productive cities, then you will churn out spaceship parts quicker. If the tech leader doesn't have productive cities, the same applies. I've always thought of Space Race as more of a production victory than a scientific victory.

About culture win, this is an objective you can't pick during the course of the game. You have to start a game and say yourself "I will try for culture victory", because that is so hard to achieve one that you have to do it since the start. I would want a culture victory that implies that we can start it in the modern age. After all, we could say in reality that America won by culture, yet they appeared only 200 or 300 years before. I think too that cultural victory, at the image of score victory, should take into account a lot more varied factors.

Click to expand...

I agree that this victory type is fairly unrealistic, but I think aiming for a particular type of victory from early on is not so much about restricting choice as it is about good strategy. The same could really be said for the other victory types but to a lesser extent. You need to set yourself up for them. You can't just expect to cruise along into the modern age without getting closer to any victory type.

Camikaze said:

Diplomacy is, literally, formulaic. There are formulas determining the diplomacy considerations of each leader (each leader has different diplomacy modifiers). I'm sure you could find them on this forum if you are having trouble.

Click to expand...

That's what troubles me. I do not like reverse-engineering, even if other people do it for me. I think the game should be beatable in highest difficulty levels without entering in any formula or code.

It is entirely possible to not be the tech leader and win a Space Race victory. For instance, if you have more productive cities, then you will churn out spaceship parts quicker. If the tech leader doesn't have productive cities, the same applies. I've always thought of Space Race as more of a production victory than a scientific victory.

Click to expand...

But you have to admit that it is more (a lot) about tech than production. In your empire you can always, with the shape of the Civ4 maps, find good production cities to build the spaceship parts.

I agree that this victory type is fairly unrealistic, but I think aiming for a particular type of victory from early on is not so much about restricting choice as it is about good strategy. The same could really be said for the other victory types but to a lesser extent. You need to set yourself up for them. You can't just expect to cruise along into the modern age without getting closer to any victory type.

Click to expand...

Actually the culture victory is the only one that does not seem instinctive. Conquest and domination are, because an important strategic choice is Civ4 is about to build buildings or units. War is pretty much well integrated to the Civ system. Same about Space Race Victory, as the tech rate (and production if you like) is the key of the game, you will recognize it easily I think.

It is different with culture and diplomacy.

I NEVER choice culture, as this would end up in a whole different game i am not familiar with. Actually to culture win (in Emperor at least, i already done it in Noble for the fun) you have to already be able to do a diplomatic victory, because you need all the knowledge about AI preferencies and the like. (the art of not being attacked by any civ, the more when you substitute wonders to army) Plus, I do not know how to expand fast and build Stonehedge and Oracle first in the same time. (I still can do it in Emperor, but only in the capital)

As to diplomacy, enough said. I simply can't stand the AI when they ask me my total gold like 500 or even 3000 gold. I systematically refuse that kind of silly and unbelievable arrogant demand, which annoys the other civs. I often end up with all Ai against me.

Naokaukodem said:

That's what troubles me. I do not like reverse-engineering, even if other people do it for me. I think the game should be beatable in highest difficulty levels without entering in any formula or code.

Click to expand...

This not really necessary. You just need a little experience to learn each of the leaders quirks. Some leaders are more likely to backstab, others will trade more easily, etc. It is not that hard to learn these just from playing the game. Similarly with the diplo bonuses and penalties. The favorite civic's of all leaders are available in the diplomacy screen (and the civlopedia), and the other bonusses are intuitive and are spelled out in the diplo screen.

You might also like to try the bug mod. This brings a lot of things directly to the interface that you would have been able to figure out based on the available info and knowledge of the game mechanics. (so it basically does what you demanded.)

[...]
It is different with culture and diplomacy.

I NEVER choice culture, as this would end up in a whole different game i am not familiar with. Actually to culture win (in Emperor at least, i already done it in Noble for the fun) you have to already be able to do a diplomatic victory, because you need all the knowledge about AI preferencies and the like. (the art of not being attacked by any civ, the more when you substitute wonders to army) Plus, I do not know how to expand fast and build Stonehedge and Oracle first in the same time. (I still can do it in Emperor, but only in the capital)

Click to expand...

You are going about winning culture all wrong. First of all you don't need a very large empire for a culture win. Six cities is enough on a small map. (you'll need 9 on standard).
Second you don't need wonders. The only important one to get is the mids and maybe the GL. The important thing is having religions spread to you. These allow you to build cathedrals which give +50% bonus to culture. The basic idea is that you build up your culture bonusses and then at some point push up the culture slider and build about 1000 culture per turn in each of your culture cities.
This of course is easiest if you set this up from the start and requires different play from the more standard expand and conquer style that you seem to be used to. On lower difficulty levels it is even possible to go for a late culture victory by setting this up later in the game. (on higher diffculties this is not possible because other players will have won before you have enough culture.)

As to diplomacy, enough said. I simply can't stand the AI when they ask me my total gold like 500 or even 3000 gold. I systematically refuse that kind of silly and unbelievable arrogant demand, which annoys the other civs. I often end up with all Ai against me.

Click to expand...

Sucking up to people is also a skill.

Trias said:

This not really necessary. You just need a little experience to learn each of the leaders quirks. Some leaders are more likely to backstab, others will trade more easily, etc. It is not that hard to learn these just from playing the game. Similarly with the diplo bonuses and penalties. The favorite civic's of all leaders are available in the diplomacy screen (and the civlopedia), and the other bonusses are intuitive and are spelled out in the diplo screen.

You might also like to try the bug mod. This brings a lot of things directly to the interface that you would have been able to figure out based on the available info and knowledge of the game mechanics. (so it basically does what you demanded.)

Click to expand...

I think that your notion of the word "little" is a little biased.

Plus Reverse-Engineering allows for a lot more deep comprehension of the AI, so why would peole use it in those very forums?

You are going about winning culture all wrong. First of all you don't need a very large empire for a culture win. Six cities is enough on a small map. (you'll need 9 on standard).
Second you don't need wonders. The only important one to get is the mids and maybe the GL. The important thing is having religions spread to you. These allow you to build cathedrals which give +50% bonus to culture. The basic idea is that you build up your culture bonusses and then at some point push up the culture slider and build about 1000 culture per turn in each of your culture cities.
This of course is easiest if you set this up from the start and requires different play from the more standard expand and conquer style that you seem to be used to. On lower difficulty levels it is even possible to go for a late culture victory by setting this up later in the game. (on higher diffculties this is not possible because other players will have won before you have enough culture.)

Click to expand...

With 9 cities on standard map, you still need to expand. That's what I meant. To say all, in higher difficulty levels, you have to expand the same way you would do for a conquest or any other victory. You have to expand the fastest possible to say all.

But if you say that we don't need stonehedge or oracle to succeed a culture win, it should not cause problems.

Sucking up to people is also a skill.

Click to expand...

Would you give 3000 gold to a buffon only to avoid a -1 pernalty in diplomacy?

And I noticed that the -1 penalty for refusing such a demand weights considerably more than the other penalties. In fact, this penalty is not homogeneous with the others, as if you refuse such demand, the AI will declare war on you more or less soon.

That's another trick to know by playing way too much (or to be sure by reverse-engineering) that is highly not logical, and this game is full of that.

Naokaukodem said:

I think that your notion of the word "little" is a little biased.

Plus Reverse-Engineering allows for a lot more deep comprehension of the AI, so why would peole use it in those very forums?

Click to expand...

What forums?

Reverse-Enigneering any AI will allow a deeper comprehension of it, and allows you to exploit it weekness. Right now, it sounds like your saying:
-I don't want to play games that you have to reverse engineer to play at its efficients.

Well, to only solution to that is: Stop playing games with an AI opponent.

With 9 cities on standard map, you still need to expand. That's what I meant. To say all, in higher difficulty levels, you have to expand the same way you would do for a conquest or any other victory. You have to expand the fastest possible to say all.

But if you say that we don't need stonehedge or oracle to succeed a culture win, it should not cause problems.

Click to expand...

Well, the expansion is at least a little different. Since you are trying for peaceful expansion, try not to expand towards your opponents too much. (as you would in an aggresive game where you are looking to rush an opponent at the earliest possibility.)

Would you give 3000 gold to a buffon only to avoid a -1 pernalty in diplomacy?

Click to expand...

Take look at the recent Obama RFC game in the strat forum. (As a roleplaying challenge he had to give in to all such demands no matter how ridiculous.) You'll see how giving in to such demands can help your game more than anybody expected. (even though the game was eventually lost.)

Also, by refusing the demand your turning down +1 relations bonus and a 10 turn peace treaty.

And I noticed that the -1 penalty for refusing such a demand weights considerably more than the other penalties. In fact, this penalty is not homogeneous with the others, as if you refuse such demand, the AI will declare war on you more or less soon.

That's another trick to know by playing way too much (or to be sure by reverse-engineering) that is highly not logical, and this game is full of that.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think that the -1 from refusing demands ways more heavily. It is just that opponents that are ready to go to war will make such demands more easilly, which is the expected behaviour from any opponent AI or otherwise.

Trias said:

What forums?

Reverse-Enigneering any AI will allow a deeper comprehension of it, and allows you to exploit it weekness. Right now, it sounds like your saying:
-I don't want to play games that you have to reverse engineer to play at its efficients.

Well, to only solution to that is: Stop playing games with an AI opponent.

Click to expand...

Strategy & Tips forums.

Actually i tend to play exclusively multiplayer games, but i also try (lastly) (with not much success) to improve my single player skills by playing Emperor single games. (I win pretty every Monarch game now)

About AIs, sure we could always reverse-engineer them in any game, but it is not required in any game. I feel, it is required in Civ4 highest difficulty levels. Like the developers said themselves "let's do a game really hard for the best hardcore "gamers" (oops, reverse-engineers)". The solution to that being of course not set the difficulty such as that.

Well, the expansion is at least a little different. Since you are trying for peaceful expansion, try not to expand towards your opponents too much. (as you would in an aggresive game where you are looking to rush an opponent at the earliest possibility.)

Click to expand...

In fact, with me, it would not end very differently. Occasionnally I can found a city right near an AI frontier, in the hope to take its nerest city later, but without horses at the start that strategy is pretty broken.

Take look at the recent Obama RFC game in the strat forum. (As a roleplaying challenge he had to give in to all such demands no matter how ridiculous.) You'll see how giving in to such demands can help your game more than anybody expected. (even though the game was eventually lost.)

Also, by refusing the demand your turning down +1 relations bonus and a 10 turn peace treaty.

Click to expand...

Yes but didn't the player adapted to this mechanism by voluntarilly lowering his amount of gold during the course of all the game? I mean, if you maintain your gold under 100, the AI may not ask you more than 100. If you want to massive upgrade, just do it turn by turn when the AI can't demand anything. This is this kind of little issues that I point out, it is easy to bypass them but it makes the game kinda dull.

Actually, I don't think that the -1 from refusing demands ways more heavily. It is just that opponents that are ready to go to war will make such demands more easilly, which is the expected behaviour from any opponent AI or otherwise.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. But it could be as well a reminiscence of Civ1/2/3, when refusing a demand was critic. The only way to be sure of that would be... reverse-engineering?

Anyway, I think that the AI operation is too much of a mystery, when they should act more like humans.

"Anyway, I think that the AI operation is too much of a mystery, when they should act more like humans."

You're kidding, right? And you said you play mostly multiplayer.

I understand what are you saying, but I don't know what should be done... Maybe the problem is not the AI, but the game mechanics.

Naokaukodem said:

Strategy & Tips forums.

Actually i tend to play exclusively multiplayer games, but i also try (lastly) (with not much success) to improve my single player skills by playing Emperor single games. (I win pretty every Monarch game now)

About AIs, sure we could always reverse-engineer them in any game, but it is not required in any game. I feel, it is required in Civ4 highest difficulty levels. Like the developers said themselves "let's do a game really hard for the best hardcore "gamers" (oops, reverse-engineers)". The solution to that being of course not set the difficulty such as that.

Click to expand...

It is not really required at emperor or immortal I think. Although by the time you get there you will have noted most of the quirks in the AIs behavior without having reverse engineered the game. You will know that Montezuma is a crazed mad man that will build more units than is good for him, and that Mansa Musa is a good tech trading partner.

Although playing without BUG at this level, gets really annoying. (You don't want to go into the diplo screen of every opponent every turn to find out their WHEORN status.)

Yes but didn't the player adapted to this mechanism by voluntarilly lowering his amount of gold during the course of all the game? I mean, if you maintain your gold under 100, the AI may not ask you more than 100. If you want to massive upgrade, just do it turn by turn when the AI can't demand anything. This is this kind of little issues that I point out, it is easy to bypass them but it makes the game kinda dull.

Click to expand...

Actually, that just is efficient strategy most of the time. You don't want to have gold sitting around doing nothing. (Except when your doing binary research which the player wasn't).

Anyway, if you are going for a diplo win you might want to shove over the gold for the 2 points in relations. (Since you will get a peace treaty for 10 turns and the AI is clearly looking for a fight, there is a good chance he will declare on somebody else, worsening inter AI relations which is also good. And since you cant declare on the AI in question nobody will come nagging to join in the war.

Anyway, I think that the AI operation is too much of a mystery, when they should act more like humans.

Click to expand...

Well,everybody would want the AIs to play more like humans, but fact is that they're not. At the level of AI sophistication we are now, they could never negotiate like humans. (which BTW are even more unpredictable than AIs).

The big difference is that against a human you need to second guess what he is thinking and against an AI you need to figure what heuristic it is using. The difference being that the AI is always thinking the same way and doesn't really adapt to your style of play. So, you can figure out 'his thought patterns' either by experience or by 'reverse-engineering'.

moscaverde said:

"Anyway, I think that the AI operation is too much of a mystery, when they should act more like humans."

You're kidding, right? And you said you play mostly multiplayer.

I understand what are you saying, but I don't know what should be done... Maybe the problem is not the AI, but the game mechanics.

Click to expand...

I mean AI will NEVER rush you early, for example. Or when they have to and can successfully, they will not attack you if they "like" you. (based on "yeepee you have the same religion as us" or "yeepee you have the same civics as us") Those things are stupid and could be corrected easily, no matter the level of AIs nowadays, Trias.

Trias said:

It is not really required at emperor or immortal I think. Although by the time you get there you will have noted most of the quirks in the AIs behavior without having reverse engineered the game. You will know that Montezuma is a crazed mad man that will build more units than is good for him, and that Mansa Musa is a good tech trading partner.

Although playing without BUG at this level, gets really annoying. (You don't want to go into the diplo screen of every opponent every turn to find out their WHEORN status.)

Click to expand...

Yes, it can be really annoying, plus the fact that I think there are much better and finner exploits than the ones you describe.

Actually, that just is efficient strategy most of the time. You don't want to have gold sitting around doing nothing. (Except when your doing binary research which the player wasn't).

Anyway, if you are going for a diplo win you might want to shove over the gold for the 2 points in relations. (Since you will get a peace treaty for 10 turns and the AI is clearly looking for a fight, there is a good chance he will declare on somebody else, worsening inter AI relations which is also good. And since you cant declare on the AI in question nobody will come nagging to join in the war.

Click to expand...

How that you can't declare war so nobody will come nagging to join in the war?

Well,everybody would want the AIs to play more like humans, but fact is that they're not. At the level of AI sophistication we are now, they could never negotiate like humans. (which BTW are even more unpredictable than AIs).

Click to expand...

They could act to win the game instead of simulating (very badly IMO) civs preferences.

The big difference is that against a human you need to second guess what he is thinking and against an AI you need to figure what heuristic it is using. The difference being that the AI is always thinking the same way and doesn't really adapt to your style of play. So, you can figure out 'his thought patterns' either by experience or by 'reverse-engineering'.

Click to expand...

Some things are nearly unfigurable by experience, or with difficulty, or I would have figure out them. The example above speaks for it self.

Camikaze said:

Scientific victory would be a good option. At the moment, it is kind of covered by Space Race, but I like the idea of having this victory type.

Click to expand...

In my opinion Space Race = Scientific victory - so no need to create a separate type of victory. I guess I would be interested in hearing why people think Space Race isn't scientific enough?

But Space Race is a hybrid of scientific and production victories. You cannot win it without a reasonable grasp of both. Having a purely scientific victory would feature a drastically different late game economy to having a space race victory. You would focus almost solely on gold, instead of on production. Also, those techs which aren't specifically needed for Space Race would have newfound importance.

home_office said:

In my opinion Space Race = Scientific victory - so no need to create a separate type of victory. I guess I would be interested in hearing why people think Space Race isn't scientific enough?

Click to expand...

Until I figure out a way to build a catapult capable of flinging scouts to the moon, I'll have to agree with you on this.