Serious Change...
- Thread starter Grit
- Start date
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
Just crank up the difficulty.
Olleus
Deity
No, because then the early game is stupidly difficult.
What is needed is a mechanism for civs which are behind in terms of production/economy/military/tech to be able to make a come back at several stages during the game. Obviously you dont want to make it too easy otherwise there is no point in doing well in the early periods of the game. However, if at the beginning of every age one civ which was lagging behind was picked out (preferably not randomly, but for completing some easy challenge) and was given a massive bonus for that one age; the game would be spiced up infinitely.
What is needed is a mechanism for civs which are behind in terms of production/economy/military/tech to be able to make a come back at several stages during the game. Obviously you dont want to make it too easy otherwise there is no point in doing well in the early periods of the game. However, if at the beginning of every age one civ which was lagging behind was picked out (preferably not randomly, but for completing some easy challenge) and was given a massive bonus for that one age; the game would be spiced up infinitely.
Abaddon
Deity
The settings have always been variable. Move off pangea and you will find the longer game more rewarding.
Usually a few other civs do gobble up the others and you are left facing a huge foe
Usually a few other civs do gobble up the others and you are left facing a huge foe
such is life. It would be cool to be able to 'liberate' those gobbled up nations, and when liberated, a new leader would emerge, as long as the original nation had >1 leader to choose from to lead the country.
unlikely to happen.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well the solution is to make the Mastery Victory a proper part of the game. I don't know if you're familiar with the Mastery Victory Mod for Civ IV, but it actually rewarded victory on the basis of an holistic approach. You got points for culture, happiness, religion, dominance, military victories etc etc-& they all added up towards final victory. That way you could be behind in 1 or 2 areas, yet still win overall.
Aussie.
Aussie.
Fluroscent
Emperor
grit said:
EdCase said:
This.
Lord Olleus said:
It goes from "kicking the AI's ---" to "stupidly difficult" just like that?
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,000
I believe the game is then too difficult all short, not only early, however early game is pretty easy considering AI will not attack you and you can turn barbs off. Also, late game in higher difficulty levels is insane considering the number of units AIs have...
Also there are shadow parts whether it comes to appreciate AIs advantages, like the upgrades. AIs upgrade so fast and without any apparent research decrease...
The fact is that with AIs above Noble there are a lot of apparent handicaps that can appear very, very unfair and frustrating...
Agreed. I was no ace and used to play on Monarch but those handicaps is what made me stop playing the game. No fun anymore. A bit disgusted with the huge stacks of units late game as well, I must say.
If combat would be a tactical operation that the AI can compute or estimate rather well (like a refined chess game), I'd be very happy and probably pick up CIV V. Looking forward to more news
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I'll be frank about why I think this happens.
1) Fans want everything including the kitchen sink to be in the game.
2) Fans kick and scream at attempts to streamline *anything* in any series, ever.
3) No company can afford to develop anything that can even pretend to be a competitive AI for the resulting game.
4) AI is given huge bonuses because it is not workable.
5) Giant late game quagmire with "over 9000" of anything and everything.
It's okay though, because you have all of the knicknacks and gewgaws you wanted. As long as the game's feature set sounds neat on paper, right?
Cut some of the fat out of a Civ game and many of these problems disappear. I love Civilization 4 BTS as much as any of you, but it has gotten obese. It groans under the weight of all the inane crap that was added to it.
1) Fans want everything including the kitchen sink to be in the game.
2) Fans kick and scream at attempts to streamline *anything* in any series, ever.
3) No company can afford to develop anything that can even pretend to be a competitive AI for the resulting game.
4) AI is given huge bonuses because it is not workable.
5) Giant late game quagmire with "over 9000" of anything and everything.
It's okay though, because you have all of the knicknacks and gewgaws you wanted. As long as the game's feature set sounds neat on paper, right?
Cut some of the fat out of a Civ game and many of these problems disappear. I love Civilization 4 BTS as much as any of you, but it has gotten obese. It groans under the weight of all the inane crap that was added to it.
TheDS
Regular Riot
I know the technology exists to do this, because it's been done in countless games, not the least of which are Empire and Railroad Tycoon 2... How about giving US players the ability to adjust difficulty settings as we see fit? Individual settings for what extra units the AI (or the novice player) will receive, what production advantage the AI (or player) gets for buildings and/or units and/or research and/or city growth etc, and maybe how many turns the AI gets to start ahead of the player (or vice versa), or whatever other things the difficulties affect. Then generate a difficulty percentage modifier to your score based on how hard you made the game. I'm tired of no in-between steps between really easy and impossible. They did that to the new Pirates too, dag-nabbit.
