Question about the timeline

[Rhye]

Is there any part of the game that flows too fast? Not in comparison with the standard game, but rather in comparison with history and also how it's felt for each civ gameplay: the feeling of "I wish I had more turns before this happened". We can discuss a bit of potential need to stretch a bit the timeline to 750.

 

[RyoFood]

I've noticed a few things that could potentially be adjusted in the game. Firstly, unlocking the Manhattan Project with the discovery of flight technology feels a bit premature, even though it doesn't actually allow the production of nuclear weapons at that point. It might be more realistic to initiate the production of the Manhattan Project only after the discovery of nuclear fission technology, in line with real historical developments.

While the timeline generally seems to adhere to historical accuracy, there are a few aspects that might need consideration. For instance, in the case of Babylon, which hasn't had the RPV implemented yet, the game might end prematurely due to its involvement in the emergence of the Arab civilization. If this scenario is to occur, it would necessitate conditions that allow players to accumulate 1000 points before this event, possibly requiring adjustments in turn numbers.

Recently, while playing as Rome, I felt that it might not be possible to fully expand Rome before the emergence of Western civilization or the birth of Byzantium (although this may not have been the intended design). This would mean that achieving the RPV would entail capturing cities from newly emerged civilizations, giving a feel more akin to a resurgence of Italy rather than an expansion of Rome. In scenarios where ancient civilizations are expected to achieve the RPV around the midpoint of the game, it might be worth considering extending the number of turns available to them to facilitate this.

Lastly, regarding science technology and ideology, I remember that while playing as America, the adoption of ideologies happened quite early on (although this might be subjective). It could be beneficial to make some adjustments in this area.

 

[OzzyKP]

Recently, while playing as Rome, I felt that it might not be possible to fully expand Rome before the emergence of Western civilization or the birth of Byzantium (although this may not have been the intended design). This would mean that achieving the RPV would entail capturing cities from newly emerged civilizations, giving a feel more akin to a resurgence of Italy rather than an expansion of Rome. In scenarios where ancient civilizations are expected to achieve the RPV around the midpoint of the game, it might be worth considering extending the number of turns available to them to facilitate this.

My first thought was that perhaps playing as Rome would block the appearance of Byzantium. My second thought was that Rome had to deal with numerous civil wars and rebellions from generals and rival emperor wannabes. I'd treat the emergence of Byzantium (or any other civ) to be a revolt that needs to be brutally supressed.

 

[Rhye]

I see. I have further questions.

- (case of Rome) Can the feeling of needing more turns to accomplish victory helped with bigger victory point bonus, or it's the time that's needed?
- do other earlier civs (Ancient and Classical) need the same? For example, Egyptians more time to spend alone building stuff
- does not apply to later civs? Such as Europeans before the emergence of USA

 

[Rhye]

about Manhattan. If I push it to Fission, it will delay nukes considerably, I think. I thought that Manhattan project takes time to be built, so it will be ready just in time as uranium is available. What years are actual nukes available to everyone?

 

[RyoFood]

I see. I have further questions.

- (case of Rome) Can the feeling of needing more turns to accomplish victory helped with bigger victory point bonus, or it's the time that's needed?
- do other earlier civs (Ancient and Classical) need the same? For example, Egyptians more time to spend alone building stuff
- does not apply to later civs? Such as Europeans before the emergence of USA

Thank you. Regarding Rome, I believe that the issue can be resolved by increasing the point threshold. I tend to think in terms of expanding like in Civ4 and aiming for a mid-game victory, but if we consider the game continuing even after the rise of European powers, adjusting the points seems like a good solution. I have played as Egypt before, and in hindsight, extra time might not have been that necessary. If the appropriate RPV is set, it seems there won't be any issues.

I remember when I cleared the game as Spain, the game had indeed entered the 1900s, but I didn't particularly feel it was too slow or that there was a need to increase the turn count or points. I also think the timing of America's emergence in the game is not an issue. The situation might vary depending on the implementation of the RPVs for other European powers, though.

 

[RyoFood]

about Manhattan. If I push it to Fission, it will delay nukes considerably, I think. I thought that Manhattan project takes time to be built, so it will be ready just in time as uranium is available. What years are actual nukes available to everyone?

Hmm, I haven't really played the game up until the contemporary era, so I'm not sure, butwhen I previously let the AI handle America and was watching, the research progressed quite quickly and finished up to future technology by 1945. Regarding nuclear weapons, I can't really say much as I haven't yet seen them being used in the game. Maybe I should try playing as America again.

 

[Jet]

This is not quite what you asked, but I think compressing the late-game tech tree affected gameplay for the worse. I can't say exactly how, since I've barely played the base game. It's not that I think a large number of turns is needed per se, but I think something about the pacing and order of events is awkward. One clear issue (I think I did mention this one before) is that there are buildings that are not worth building, since they'll get so little use. Once you compress the late eras like that that, you really need to redesign ~all~ of the gameplay elements so that they work well in the context of a smaller number of turns. But I don't think you need to compress it at all. I think you might as well leave it the way it was originally, except for the mecha and whatever other tweaks you need. With the emphasis on RP victories, most games are not going to play for that long anyway, so it doesn't matter if the total possible number of turns is large. It doesn't hurt.

 

[Rhye]

This is not quite what you asked, but I think compressing the late-game tech tree affected gameplay for the worse. I can't say exactly how, since I've barely played the base game. It's not that I think a large number of turns is needed per se, but I think something about the pacing and order of events is awkward. One clear issue (I think I did mention this one before) is that there are buildings that are not worth building, since they'll get so little use. Once you compress the late eras like that that, you really need to redesign ~all~ of the gameplay elements so that they work well in the context of a smaller number of turns. But I don't think you need to compress it at all. I think you might as well leave it the way it was originally, except for the mecha and whatever other tweaks you need. With the emphasis on RP victories, most games are not going to play for that long anyway, so it doesn't matter if the total possible number of turns is large. It doesn't hurt.

thanks. Could you enter more in detail about which buildings or units are not worth?