Which came first, the Sword or the Shield?

I ask this as a rhetorical question, obviously. However in Civ it seems this is not the case.

It is perfectly possible to discover and build Anti-Tank units long before anyone in the world even knows what a tank is. Likewise, Grenadiers may be built, with their advantage against Riflemen, many techs before knowing what a Redcoat looks like.

Again, I rhetorically ask - why?

The simple answer is the 'Civ is too easy' mob. Tanks provide a clear, significant advantage over any nation that does not possess them. The select Elite cry out 'oh my that's far too easy a tactic, just be first to get tanks'.

Let's brush aside common sense for a moment and try to answer this small mob on their own terms. Pointing out that mechanised armies historically (thats the real world history, i.e. in actual real life) have repeatedly triumphed in nation vs. nation conflicts isn't a good enough explanation for these people.

It may be an easy tactic on lower levels, for a large number of people. But please remember that quite a significant proportion on people will never advance beyond Noble difficulty, because, much as I hate to blow sunshine up some peoples backsides, Civ is a hard game such that many people will never even see the likes of Monarch, Emperor difficulties because the time investment to get that 'good' is too large for them.

The vast, vast majority of the playing populace cannot even conceive winning at Immortal or Deity levels. So to leave a couple of tactics in that are 'obvious' to the select Elite - is this really such a bad thing? Is Civ meant to pander to a clique of a couple of thousand (if that)? I would say not.

Civ is already difficult. It always has been, alway will be - the concepts, trains of thought and planning, management and constraints are far beyond what is required of most games (I have gun, I see move, Me shoot Gun), which is why it is so popular and succesful, because despite all that Civ is really quite accessable to anyone that does want to spend a little time learning those concepts. And I mean a little.

I fear Civ, in it's desperation to pander to this Elite are making the advanced levels more and more inaccessable to the vast majority of players. This is *not* a good thing. I would like to be able to use common sense, with some additions of careful management timing and skill to win, with refinements of these techniques win at harder levels.

I, and guarantee 99% of the playing public, do not want to have to visit sites to 'learn the great and mysterious methods of a handful of Elites', picking up such choice ideas such as 'Do Not Expand Your Empire for at least the first 5000 years beyond 6 or 7 cities or you are screwed - in fact, it is much better to only have one city and win for then we will annoint you into our hallowed brethren'.

Why? Because we like the idea of going through history, matching, echoing, re-enacting the trials and tribulations of History. That's real life, actual life History, note the capital H.

And in History if you had a Sword and the enemy didn't have a Shield, well, you were Quids In.

The answer is
if tanks came first and anti-tanks came after then no one will survive vs the tanks long enough to get anti-tanks.
=> So the anti-tank part of the game wouldn't work,
=> so it has to be the other way round.
=> So now it's now down to the player to think "Oooh there are no tanks around and there won't be anytime soon so I don't have to worry about anti-tanks yet."

Well obviously the shield, since the sword was not invented until humans could work with metal.

But on the actual question, Zubbus has it right. Tanks are such a huge advantage that if you have no anti-tanks, you are pretty much cornered.

But on the actual question, Zubbus has it right. Tanks are such a huge advantage that if you have no anti-tanks, you are pretty much cornered.

Click to expand...

Gosh, that's never happened in History has it? Dunkirk was just Ice Creams and Sandcastles...

Well obviously the shield, since the sword was not invented until humans could work with metal.

Click to expand...

Fair point on that though, pedantically speaking.

Civ is not a simulation of Real Life.

Anti-tanks also intercept air units. They come with arty...basically they're just a dude with a bazooka. You don't need knowledge of tanks to have uses for bazookas!

Same thing with grenadiers...they might be particularly effective against rifles, but its plausible that people would construct handheld explosives before guns, as the explosives would serve a lot of uses other than just to counter rifles (people still use grenades today). Later they might discover the utility of these weapons vs rifles. Remember, civ turns pass many years at once until very late in the game, it's not hard to imagine such adaptive innovation across even 1 turn's worth of time.

The OP's point escapes me: obviously it's more than just the paradoxical invention of AT guns before the invention of tanks. (Although one might argue that Civ's "AT guns" are direct-fire artillery armed with high-explosive shells before tanks appeared and outfitted with armor-piercing shells after tanks debut).

Is the point that the higher level of Civ IV are needlessly hard? That there's too much esoteric trivia needed at the higher levels? That in order to win consistently at the Immortal level one has to play a certain way or know all sorts of details to get an edge? Many games, esp. strategy games are like this: things that you don't have to pay too much attention to at the easier settings become crucial at the difficult levels, but that's why they're difficult.

I wish that Civ's AI were strong enough that a different level meant that it played better, made decisions, researched better and that in order to defeat it, we had to play better. That's not how it is though: the AI gets bonuses and we have to learn "tricks" to exploit the AI's tendencies.

I wouldn't get hung up on what level or difficulty one is playing and winning at. I play on the Deity/Immortal level and I love the challenge, but if I were on Settler and having fun, that'd be cool too. If many players never successfully play the upper levels, that doesn't mean they can't have fun with Civ IV. Maybe, maybe, they will miss out on the supposed satisfaction of having forum bragging rights or winning in spectacular ways, but it's ultimately not that cool anyway.

Every gaming forum I've been too has had hardcore players wanting tougher conditions and seemingly wanting everyone to play "their way or no way" but Civfanatics have been unusually friendly to gamers at all levels of play. Many gamers may never win at the higher levels of play but I would bet most of them had as much or more fun at their level. When I was playing at a lower level, I had as much fun then as now.

If the AI improved, the adjustment would merely bet to give it less bonuses. You still want it to play optimally at all levels, but if it played better scaling the bonuses differently would compensate that.

Beeblbrox said:

Gosh, that's never happened in History has it? Dunkirk was just Ice Creams and Sandcastles...

Click to expand...

I apologize, I understand nothing of what you are saying. I even forgot what Dunkirk is (forgive me, history buffs). Can you explain this? I like ice cream.

Civ is not a simulation of Real Life.

Click to expand...

You obviously have not seen the front page article of this website today then.

"Is Civ Educational"

Like it or not many people do, have and will continue to see reflections of life in Civ, and reflections of Civ in real life. It's the nature of todays society to find information in multi-media output - but I'm not going to argue semantics of this subject any further, read up on it if you feel so inclined (try Chomsky if you are at all Pacifistically inclined - ooh Pacifism, that's not relected in Civ at all is it?).

I would have thought it quite clear that Civ is a reflection of a 'rational' theory of societal evolution, with it's mechanics etc., the very subject, indeed the very title of the game lends itself as such.

Other counterpoints to more clearly thought posts later.

I apologize, I understand nothing of what you are saying. I even forgot what Dunkirk is (forgive me, history buffs). Can you explain this? I like ice cream.

Click to expand...

The defence of France, specifically the British Expeditionary Force, mostly comprised of Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery and the Maginot Line comprised of fortified machine gun positions totally and utterly overcome by the German Blitzkrieg one of the defining features of which was the highly superior Armoured Tank units (Panzers, Tigers), ultimately ending in a very desperate emergency evacuation action from the beaches of Dunkirk where many, many thousands of lives were lost in the face of overwhelming power.

That's what Tanks can, did, and should be able to do.

If the AI improved, the adjustment would merely bet to give it less bonuses. You still want it to play optimally at all levels, but if it played better scaling the bonuses differently would compensate that.

Click to expand...

My argument that you seem to have missed is that Civ is sufficiently difficult without extra 'tactics' for the AI to employ at harder levels. That you, as a dedicated Civ player, find the level 'too easy' is my main argument - you are one among many, many thousands (millions) that play this game. I'm arguing for a more lenient game for the rest of us.

Eventually - why not have a game where the AI gets 10 Settlers and 50 archers to start with? I mean gosh that's really hard, and I'm sure somebody would find a way round it so hey lets include that in the mainstay of the game definitions.

No - it's idiotic, and people who buy this game do not want a spiral of insane difficulty. The AI is very, very good. I have seen it develop from Civ 1 and 2 where it ws pathetically easy (to me - remember I do not forget that the vast majority of casual gamers still found it quite hard), to Civ3 where the insane corruption and OCN destroyed my favoured tactics PLUS the AI clocked on to occupying all available land, to Civ4 where the corruption/OCN was somewhat reigned in, and the AI improved yet further.

The AI is good. Civ is extremely hard. You have just been playing it so long and have been immersed in it's minutiae so long you have forgotten how a newbie feels, and - most critically - how the newbie that wishes to discover and explore the game for themselves, without seeking out exploitations and workarounds here and elsewhere, will feel when trying to climb the Civ difficulty ladder. Ask a friend that has never played the game to try it, without giving them your 'sage' advice. It wont be what you expect - largely because you have probably never considered that scenario.

'Theme Park' went the same way. I don't want this to happen to Civ.

Some points already highlighted in previous answers.

The OP's point escapes me: obviously it's more than just the paradoxical invention of AT guns before the invention of tanks.

Click to expand...

Thankyou - someone that gets the underlying point

(Although one might argue that Civ's "AT guns" are direct-fire artillery armed with high-explosive shells before tanks appeared and outfitted with armor-piercing shells after tanks debut).

Click to expand...

True, I suppose, and it was a mission statement in the release of Civ4 that 'multiple paths to succes in the Science tree may be found', so fair point. To a point. To argue pedantically, surely the existence of Armoured units should be a pre-requisite of the anti-armour bonus? Likewise Grenadiers. I would argue a sufficient espionage level versus someone with those units be a requirement if lacking possession of armoured technology themselves. But this is a technical issue.

Is the point that the higher level of Civ IV are needlessly hard? That there's too much esoteric trivia needed at the higher levels? That in order to win consistently at the Immortal level one has to play a certain way or know all sorts of details to get an edge? Many games, esp. strategy games are like this: things that you don't have to pay too much attention to at the easier settings become crucial at the difficult levels, but that's why they're difficult.

Click to expand...

To some extent I have no objection to knowledge of the technical aspects of the games mechanics being requisite to success at higher levels. However, the very high levels, Immortal, Deity, etc. requires knowledge of abusing inadequacies of the Ai, i.e. playing outside the 'spirit' of the game as it were, if you can understand that concept. I strongly object to that sort of knowledge being required, very very strongly object.

I wish that Civ's AI were strong enough that a different level meant that it played better, made decisions, researched better and that in order to defeat it, we had to play better. That's not how it is though: the AI gets bonuses and we have to learn "tricks" to exploit the AI's tendencies.

Click to expand...

I'd rather wait for better Ai and enjoy the game as it can possibly be without resorting to such methods. Obviously just me, but I refer to 'spirit of the game' as aforementioned.

I wouldn't get hung up on what level or difficulty one is playing and winning at. I play on the Deity/Immortal level and I love the challenge, but if I were on Settler and having fun, that'd be cool too. If many players never successfully play the upper levels, that doesn't mean they can't have fun with Civ IV. Maybe, maybe, they will miss out on the supposed satisfaction of having forum bragging rights or winning in spectacular ways, but it's ultimately not that cool anyway.

Click to expand...

Everyone wants the satisfaction of beating the Ai at it's best. Throwing in ridiculous bonuses or workarounds to 'obvious' (remember, not obvious to most players) tactics I do not believe is the way forward. Most of the people I'm referring to will never be bothered about forum bragging rights because they will never look the game up on the net, so that's not the issue at all. The 'Elite' that vociferously demand more and more ridiculous and esoteric requirements for game success are the ones you will hear about on this site and others.

Every gaming forum I've been too has had hardcore players wanting tougher conditions and seemingly wanting everyone to play "their way or no way" but Civfanatics have been unusually friendly to gamers at all levels of play. Many gamers may never win at the higher levels of play but I would bet most of them had as much or more fun at their level. When I was playing at a lower level, I had as much fun then as now.

Click to expand...

See previous comment. Civfanatics is pretty friendly, as long as you don't deviate from the underlying hegemony's value system. Please answer how the hell a 'single city challenge' actually made its way on to the civ main options? Find me a newbie that bought this game and immeditaly thought 'a game of Empires? wouldn't it be cool if I didn't actually build an empire and still won?'.

You don't need an option to 'enforce' this rule. You just need to not build a Settler. This option should have been a mod, but most seriously indicates how Elitely 'bored' the net residents for this game had become that it needed to be included. And it is the bragging that was referred to that should be rejected as you point out as 'not cool'.


Repeat Quote:
Many gamers may never win at the higher levels of play but I would bet most of them had as much or more fun at their level. When I was playing at a lower level, I had as much fun then as now

Wrong. Not many gamers, but over 90% of gamers will never win at higher levels, in fact the majority have difficulty winning at the medium level. They will not, and do not find this fun, for very long. Perhaps you confuse Civ with Chess a true game of Kings, where there are true benefits to learning how to play the game at all levels.

Civ is not Chess, and the majority of players will get fed up quite quickly of finding they are told they aren't even average at the game (according to the difficulties they try for) when in fact they have probably invested enough time in the game to deserve at least Monarch difficulty.

The Elite have distorted the spectrum. Make some mods with extreme difficulties, and relish those challenges between yourselves.

TheMeInTeam said:

Anti-tanks also intercept air units. They come with arty...basically they're just a dude with a bazooka. You don't need knowledge of tanks to have uses for bazookas!

Same thing with grenadiers...they might be particularly effective against rifles, but its plausible that people would construct handheld explosives before guns, as the explosives would serve a lot of uses other than just to counter rifles (people still use grenades today). Later they might discover the utility of these weapons vs rifles. Remember, civ turns pass many years at once until very late in the game, it's not hard to imagine such adaptive innovation across even 1 turn's worth of time.

Click to expand...

For gameplay purposes I won't quibble, but what exactly are the benefits of Grens v Rifles? No man can throw a grenade farther than a Rifle can fire a bullet. And in RL Grenadier Infantry faced Muskets, not Rifles. For game purposes, it's the developers just reaching for a rock-paper-scissors counter to the Rifleman; I just wish they'd thought to come up with a more sensical RL analog (except that there wasn't one, other than your own Rifleman).

For game purposes, it's the developers just reaching for a rock-paper-scissors counter to the Rifleman; I just wish they'd thought to come up with a more sensical RL analog (except that there wasn't one, other than your own Rifleman).

Click to expand...

Precisely. The only answer is to keep up in the tech race, which was part of the original Civ game definition itself. If you don't, you die. (Well, you can get really clever with Diplomacy but that is how less technological nations have survived IRL so no objections there from me)

What the objectors to my original post miss, is that actually the AI has got that good that with even minor bonuses (an extra settler on Deity) they will overtake the average player, and with significant enough bonuses they will thrash you no matter how clever you may be....

So we don't really need paradoxical units such as the pre-tank Anti-Tank unit to help the AI out do we?

OP, you consider that you're just playing the wrong game, and that you have read the group that plays this game quite incorrectly? And I say this well aware that you signed up for this forum in 2001.

You make a post in the midst of one of the friendliest and most accommodating forum communities I've seen in over a decade of game forum posting talking about some little mob of elitists and describe this game as one that would "pander" to some sort of "clique"... In fact, what you say is this:

"The vast, vast majority of the playing populace cannot even conceive winning at Immortal or Deity levels. So to leave a couple of tactics in that are 'obvious' to the select Elite - is this really such a bad thing? Is Civ meant to pander to a clique of a couple of thousand (if that)? I would say not."

I don't get what you want, and why you have to repeatedly describe a really friendly group of gamers as elitist and cliquey etc etc. Do you want all difficulties to be easily accessible to all gamers? Isn't the entire purpose of difficulties to make some levels of play inaccessible to those who aren't willing to sink a great deal of time and thought into playing a game? And don't you realize that this is one of the least elitist/cliquey gaming communities you're like to find in the more broad internet gaming community?

You're dead right - 99% of gamers "do not want to have to visit sites to 'learn the great and mysterious methods of a handful of Elites" - but what you *completely* ignore is that there are multiple difficulty levels suited for players that fit that description. And what you, I dare say in an insulting and almost condescending manner, fail to notice is that, should someone decide they do want to learn those "great and mysterious methods," there is a forum full of friendly and helpful gamers - HARDLY a clique - that is more than willing to help them through their growing pains in becoming "elitists" themselves.

The game is made in a manner that allows for many levels of play. The fact that some levels are not entirely accessible to some gamers, or that the AI doesn't work in exactly the way we all want it to, doesn't make anyone elitist, doesn't mean that it's pandering only to some little clique that turns its collective nose up to the up and comers. If all you want to do is rant about how the way the difficulty scales (which is what I'm suspecting from your responses) you've gone about it in one of the most arse backward ways you could have done so, slagging the community in the process.

Maybe I've read you wrong, but my response to this rambling post is... Get over yourself - there are nice guys here, and this game has settings for everyone. Saying that the upper echelons of this game's community are elitist and a clique and that the game panders only to those gamers is dead wrong.

For gameplay purposes I won't quibble, but what exactly are the benefits of Grens v Rifles?

Click to expand...

Very similar to the benefits of axes versus spears, of course .

To some extent I have no objection to knowledge of the technical aspects of the games mechanics being requisite to success at higher levels. However, the very high levels, Immortal, Deity, etc. requires knowledge of abusing inadequacies of the Ai, i.e. playing outside the 'spirit' of the game as it were, if you can understand that concept. I strongly object to that sort of knowledge being required, very very strongly object.

Click to expand...

Well let's see. If you're purporting that the elite (if this forum carries such a designation anyway) distorted this game, and that you're not among them, then how could you possibly know the requirements for winning at these levels? I'm an "aspiring" elite in that I can win immortal but not deity. In WATCHING the elite players, they don't have to abuse anything to beat the AI at immortal. They can just out-tech it easily. You're also playing fast and loose with what's "abusive". Very fast and loose.

See previous comment. Civfanatics is pretty friendly, as long as you don't deviate from the underlying hegemony's value system. Please answer how the hell a 'single city challenge' actually made its way on to the civ main options? Find me a newbie that bought this game and immeditaly thought 'a game of Empires? wouldn't it be cool if I didn't actually build an empire and still won?'.

Click to expand...

I must ask, do you realize that you're actually complaining that a company put something EXTRA into the game as an OPTIONAL feature? You know...to cater to some of its fanbase? If a beginner doesn't want it, don't click it? It does a lot more than block settlers, by the way.

Wrong. Not many gamers, but over 90% of gamers will never win at higher levels, in fact the majority have difficulty winning at the medium level. They will not, and do not find this fun, for very long. Perhaps you confuse Civ with Chess a true game of Kings, where there are true benefits to learning how to play the game at all levels.

Civ is not Chess, and the majority of players will get fed up quite quickly of finding they are told they aren't even average at the game (according to the difficulties they try for) when in fact they have probably invested enough time in the game to deserve at least Monarch difficulty.

Click to expand...

Where does the 90% come from? Why is a video game being compared to chess? This just boils down to more complaining about extra features. Civ doesn't "tell" players anything. They infer it from the difficulty level. But, it begs the question...why do you care again? The whole point of the difficulty scale is that players find a level appropriate to them.

Also, what's with the sense of entitlement "deserves monarch"? Some people attained monarch quite quickly. This argument reeks of my greatest pet peeve ever: that time spent = output is treated as a singular constraint. It really irks me when someone in a group finds out I spent less time on my part than theirs and feels slighted, despite the fact that I put up more (and by the professors estimation) higher quality work. Nono, they "deserved" more because of extra time...? I was often forced to put "x hours" of work into studying as a kid. That...was a nightmare.

No, just like reality, people learn the game at different speeds. Once you have sufficient knowledge of the game, most of the levels are quite beatable or even easy. However, you HAVE to have the understanding. It's not unlike knowledge for a test or sport. Civ is particularly complex, so it has a higher learning curve than other games. Extra features is not civ's flaw (it certainly has flaws though). Complaining about the extra features is really questionable.

Civ is telling you "yes, it's possible to beat deity". That doesn't mean you have to do it. But, complaining just because that difficulty exists is more complaining about one's ability to get to that level (or get there easily). Perhaps this entire thread is a case study in the walls people encounter between being average vs elite at something. I don't know.

Beeblbrox said:

The defence of France, specifically the British Expeditionary Force, mostly comprised of Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery and the Maginot Line comprised of fortified machine gun positions totally and utterly overcome by the German Blitzkrieg one of the defining features of which was the highly superior Armoured Tank units (Panzers, Tigers), ultimately ending in a very desperate emergency evacuation action from the beaches of Dunkirk where many, many thousands of lives were lost in the face of overwhelming power.

That's what Tanks can, did, and should be able to do.

Click to expand...

No Tigers at Dunkirk (too early in the war).

Regarding One City Challenge...

Beeblbrox said:

You don't need an option to 'enforce' this rule. You just need to not build a Settler. This option should have been a mod, but most seriously indicates how Elitely 'bored' the net residents for this game had become that it needed to be included. And it is the bragging that was referred to that should be rejected as you point out as 'not cool'.

Click to expand...

Not quite - it's not as simple as not building a settler. Don't forget that cities have to be auto razed on capture and all national wonders have to be allowed. There are probably others I'm forgetting...

And Beeblbrox,

Have you considered that Civ4 was the first civ game that targeted the multiplayer audience more. I'm not sure how many people used the mutliplayer feature...

Having multiplayer in a game means balancing things out is more important than in single player games. Your arguments seem to mainly be concerned with the difficulty against the AI. Consider the introduction of AT units as a counter for a human player to another human player who rushes for tanks. Without the AT units, a single strategy is too powerful and gameplay suffers.

I'm really trying to see the OP's point, but I'm just not getting it.

I play on Prince and find that quite hard. Very occasionally I win, sometimes I'm involved in good games but ultimately lose and other times I just get blown out of the water. I feel this is 'my level'. If I play a lot and get better, I may manage to master Prince and move up to Monarch. The chances of me ever moving up beyond that are, to be honest, very slim.

But how does the existance of the Deity and Immortal levels hurt me in any way? They mean that I will almost certainly never 'beat' the game in the classic sense, but to be honest I consider that a good thing rather than bad. I love the game and don't ever want to be at the point where I have mastered the highest difficulty level. It wouldn't even matter there were 15 higher difficulty levels than Prince. I'm never going to see them - big deal. It's not like I'm missing out on any part of the game at lower levels, just that I don't have to deal with (for me) insurmountable AI advantages.

And to answer the more direct question, sometimes I find it pays to look at the techs and units a little less literally and a little more symbolically. Let's say you research Artillery before anyone gets Industrialization. I would look at it that you have advanced science in Balistics to a point where you are capable of propelling powerful projectiles fast enough to hypothetically bust tank armour. It doesn't matter if tanks don't actually exist yet, you have the ballistic power to counteract them.

Yes, that means you could build anti-tank units before there are tanks. A bit of a paradox, but just look at it like you have ineffiicient units that have enormous guns boasting far more personal firepower than they really need to take down human-based troops. Then one day someone invents the tank and your general says "hey boss, I think we might have a use for those enormous guns we built but didn't have much use for".

Of course, this line of thought involves a lot of rationalizing as to why you would defend your city with troops that had weapons that were highly inefficient against all known enemies. But then again so many things in Civ rely on you as a player knowing that certain things in the game that don't yet exist will exist at some point. I doubt in real life the wheel was invented so that it may hasten the production of pottery which would allow the villiagers to build cottages which would eventually turn into towns either.

From PieMaster

Of course, this line of thought involves a lot of rationalizing... etc.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it requires a massive amount of rationalising, in fact some very dubious rationalising, purely to allow what at best can be generously described as a Game Balancing 'Feature'.

When dubious methods such as this are crowbarred into a game, surely we should ask ourselves, 'does this indicate a more fundamental problem'?

This is what I am trying to drive at overall with my post. Even if my careful original post and comprehensive responses to counterpoints are described by some as 'rambling'.

Beeblbrox said:

The defence of France, specifically the British Expeditionary Force, mostly comprised of Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery and the Maginot Line comprised of fortified machine gun positions totally and utterly overcome by the German Blitzkrieg one of the defining features of which was the highly superior Armoured Tank units (Panzers, Tigers), ultimately ending in a very desperate emergency evacuation action from the beaches of Dunkirk where many, many thousands of lives were lost in the face of overwhelming power.

That's what Tanks can, did, and should be able to do.

Click to expand...

French SOMUA S35 was far superior than anything Germans could put against them. Germans had superior doctrine, tactics in CIV4 terms. And Dunkirk ultimately was German failure, because Goring promised to deal with encircled troops by his own (he was commander of Luftwaffe) but failed to do so and British got away with mini scale damage.