10 Reasons Why Conquests Went Wrong

[Dragonlord]

Having read most of this thread (with some skimming, I admit) with interest, I can't resist putting in my 2 cents:

I don't agree that Conquests is broken because of the new features. I have been playing it exclusively ever since it came out - I hardly ever play any other game than Civ nowadays, and haven't played Vanilla or PTW once since Conquests!
Conquests has changed the game, yes, and has given some new possible exploits of human vs. AI - but, OTH, it's fixed some old gripes and, on the whole, added more variety, which far outweighs that, IMO.
It's never been a problem to out'think' the AI - to me, it's a matter of personal choice how much you take advantage of that.

Yes, you CAN, for instance, build a huge bomber fleet and annihilate the AI with that exclusively - but to do that, you first have to survive through almost 3 full ages, ending up with enough production capacity to build all those expensive bombers. That is no small feat in itself on higher difficulty levels! And then, if you find that playing style boring - I would - why do it?
I personally try to avoid any 'extreme' styles of play, my goal is to build a well-rounded Civ that dominates the world, with both good infrastructure AND a strong military - and that is difficult enough at DemiGod on up that I will use every advantage I can get and 'take it as it comes'.
Civ Conquests is a great game with far more pro's than cons - especially since many of those subjective cons can be modified in the editor.
Edit: One of the best things about Conquests are the many enjoyable Mods that have been made possible by it! Most of those change the rules extensively anyway, so I'm used to adapting to rule changes - each Mod is almost like a completely new game, and thats what keeps it interesting!

I DO agree, though, that Conquests has major flaws which should be (or should have been ) corrected, notably those defined by Sir Pleb:

1) Invisible units triggering unintended wars
2) The problems with armies
3) Scientific Golden Age not working
4) Barbarians are broken

Though I would change the priorities: The useless Barbarians annoy me the most, and after that the problems with Armies.

These are not subjective but objective flaws, true bugs which should long since have been patched!

Of course, I would also agree that the AI should be able to at least competently use all features of a game (of course!), but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to be fixed anytime soon...

 

[tomart109]

Dragonlord, sorry if i missed it, but why do you say this?

4) Barbarians are broken

IMO, barbs behave better in c3c. They don't simply march predictably like drones toward the nearest vulnerable unit or city, they behave more interestingly - changing their minds, dividing up, even stopping to camp for awhile. This makes defending against or chasing them far more interesting and realistic. Back in PTW, i led a huge stack around by the nose, with one unit... they kept following, so i led them to an enemy city. How can you take them seriously after that?

On Wonder-rushing: I have trouble believing that a civilization that had invested huge manpower, treasure and decades into building pyramids would demolish them all when they hear that someone else built some...
Or - worse - they somehow magically moved and transformed the mostly-completed pyramids into walls that protected their frontiers...

I've given up building Wonders because of this. Let the AIs compete and lose piles of shields, or end up with a Wonder that doesn't help them like the one they tried for. Now capturing the one i want, that's entirely reasonable and rewarding.

 

[Sickman]

I don't agree that Conquests is broken because of the new features.

Of course, I would also agree that the AI should be able to at least competently use all features of a game (of course!), but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to be fixed anytime soon...

I have to post something here.

I agree that Conquests didn't broke the game, it couldn't broke something that was already broken.

Thing is that I waited Civ3 for so long and waited the expansions and patches to fix all the flaws. But about six months ago I let it go...

There are problems that you can correct with modding but there are also things that are hardcoded and cannot be touched which I find something that eventually kills Civ3 off.

Firaxis is just taking money away with expansions and considering what civ3 turned out to be with both of expansions I will be really checking whether to put my money into Civ4 because the main flaw of Civilization is the AI.

If the AI works you can have fun without multiplay (which has it's own issues when it comes to the balancing of the game)but it's frustrating to start the game and notice that AI doesn't even try to win unless they are already in pole position, then they start to be aggressive.

AI should offer challenge in lower difficult levels even when they don't have zillion extra units and extra support to go with.

 

[player1 fanatic]

IMO, barbs behave better in c3c. They don't simply march predictably like drones toward the nearest vulnerable unit or city, they behave more interestingly - changing their minds, dividing up, even stopping to camp for awhile. This makes defending against or chasing them far more interesting and realistic. Back in PTW, i led a huge stack around by the nose, with one unit... they kept following, so i led them to an enemy city. How can you take them seriously after that?

Ignorance is bliss.


Following BIG SPOILER:











Anyway, C3C barbarians are heavily bugged.

They will always attack armed targets at NW/SE axis, and they will never attack any other armed targets.

Now, if that isn't predictable...

 

[tomart109]

ok, thanks for the spoiler... well, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[punkbass2000]

Furthermore, barbs will move in the direction of any unit along the NW/SE axis. This is very useful in Age of Discovery, particularly as the Maya. Find one of the huge pikemen barb stacks, put a couple Javelin Throwers at least two tiles NW or SE of the stack on a mountain, fortify the next turn, and gain 5-10 slave workers (ie.200-400 culture points).

 

[TimBentley]

The only fair solution to wonder races problem is eliminate rushing completely, in any form and eliminate AI production bonus when building wonders. Only then it would be fair deal.

Prebuilding would have to be eliminated as well.

 

[Gen]

At least prebuilding for wonders. Switching to something else should be possible IMO; loss of hundreds of shields would be too frustrating for many players. Having bank, cathedral or nuke instead would not be complete waste.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

I discovered that if you don't use NoAIPatrol=1 in the ini file, and play with raging barbs, barbarians WILL attack units from other than the NW/SE axis ocassionally and they don't just sit there as much, they wander around more.

 

[akots]

... Don't however take some kind of superior attitude, please. ...

Sorry, did not mean that. Please feel free to attribute this to the fact that English is not my native language besides, I'm rather arrogant at times.

 

[Breunor]

I discovered that if you don't use NoAIPatrol=1 in the ini file, and play with raging barbs, barbarians WILL attack units from other than the NW/SE axis ocassionally and they don't just sit there as much, they wander around more.

Wow, this is really important! How many people know this?

Breunor

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

I don't think too many ppl know it. I found out while working on The Ancient Mediterranean mod along with a couple new IMPORTANT bugs that nobody seems to know about.

They still prefer the NW/SE axis but because they wander around more, they are more likely to get on it. Attacking off the axis is a little unpredictable... sometimes they will and sometimes they won't.

 

[genghis_khev]

Akots, don't worry. Being British I automatically (and completely incorrectly) assume everyone can speak / type english fluently.

Watorrey, I think this little bit of info deserves its own thread. I mean, we're on page 8 of an old thread that most ppl are not reading and I think most would like to know this.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

I discovered that if you don't use NoAIPatrol=1 in the ini file, and play with raging barbs, barbarians WILL attack units from other than the NW/SE axis ocassionally and they don't just sit there as much, they wander around more.

And which INI file would this be, may I ask? It sure as heck isn't the unit INI's, since I've done enough custom units to know that much already.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

conquests.ini

 

[Longasc]

watorrey, this is of common interest, you should perhaps post this advice in a new thread, really!

 

[punkbass2000]

watorrey, this is of common interest, you should perhaps post this advice in a new thread, really!

He did.

 

[dariusII]

Sulla, your comments on Conquests are interesting as always, but I must confess that they may occasionally be contradictory. The one in particular is on the MDI’s. I for one welcome this addition and fail to see how they have derailed the strategy of the game. The fact that swords could not be upgraded in VanillaCiv was a limitation.
You yourself acknowledged as much on your website in regards to Roman Legion UU, "The fact that Legions cannot be upgraded is another strike against them (this is no longer the case in the PTW expansion, of course)."
So, are you now saying that Roman Legions were “stronger” or “better” because you could not upgrade them?
My view is that the upgrade ability of swords improves the game for the casual player. Your strategic view of non-upgradeable swords sounds more suited to a variation game, not the standard epic game. Thus I feel Firaxis got this one right.

 

[riley555]

Wow. Anyways Sulla, I'm sure breakaway could care less. They obviously dont care to change it, and it would take more time and money to balance it out further in the creation process. Sadly in many industries and not just the gaming industry we will see more of this lazyness and cheapness from companys. It's all a question of money. The problem comes in the profit area, because it's never enough with these people and any dipsh*t or as$hole can become a CEO. Also half of the owners of video game companies these days are fat boring businessmen who have probably never even touched a controller or keyboard when it comes to gaming. If leaving the game with some disadvantages and crappiness (which by the way could be quite easily cleaned out) means more money with an earlier release date then hey, why not just leave it? And because of this i've shown less and less interest in game's as time goes on. And hey we have something else to look forward to! i'm willing to bet $1,000,000 that within a few years ALL gaming companies will be owned by one "fat boring businessman" buying everything out with his corporate fist. So the game industry will be dumbed down even more and games will completely suck. But idiots will still buy into them. And don't even get me started with X-Box

One point I disagree with is the "overpowered" air. I think it's much more realistic now, air power can be and is VERY devastating in large quantity in real life. All sides get access to powerful air and lethal bombardment, so what's rigged? it is possible to counter such power and as long as you can, the enemies airpower isn't so great and both sides are challenged by the obstacle of these powerful instruments. Say the enemy sends 20-50 bombers to a city of yours and completely ruins it, Don't you like that? it's more exciting that way and now you're aware of his deadly airpower. and it's not like theres anything stopping you from protecting yourself against it with air superiority or beating up his airforce with grand strategy. Just remember in every game now, BUILD PLANES AND GUARD AGAINST THIS POWERFUL FORCE! I love how they tweaked planes in Conquests, it stresses just how very important airpower is. The reason WW2 was won was because of immense bombing by the allies, U.S. airpower was absolutely devastating in the pacific in the last couple years when japan's airforce was virtually wiped out. The allies practically bombed Germany into submission. They knocked out everything from soldiers to factories producing war material to the civilians working in the factories with minimal losses for the most part. If it wasn't for such overwhelming bombing and airpower the allies might not have won ww2 or it would have took alot longer. Either way in real life whoever has control of the skies potentially controls the war and/or is given a huge advantange, just like in Conquests. And if you say "oh well I was able to build 50 planes against the AI and completely bomb his cities/units to rubble and take over his country without a sweat", thats an AI issue not a unit issue. But in the end either way I could care less on how they tweak planes. Civ3 and Conquests both offer good versions.

 

[warpstorm]

Wow. Anyways Sulla, I'm sure breakaway could care less. They obviously dont care to change it, and it would take more time and money to balance it out further in the creation process.

Breakaway has absolutely nothing to do with Conquests any more. After the release candidate was shipped their job was done and they have no legal rights to work on it (I'm sure that they would be sued if they tried to release a version of it). They were contracted for a specific amount of time.