The thing is, this is a game, not real life. The goal is to make a civilization (hence the title of the game) and what is why I assume you bought Civ 4 in the first place. I agree with you, there are some issues with a couple civs getting out of control and expanding crazily, but we have some ideas about that. We just can't agree on which ones would be best.
Caveman 2 Cosmos
- Thread starter strategyonly
- Start date
The thing is, this is a game, not real life. The goal is to make a civilization (hence the title of the game) and what is why I assume you bought Civ 4 in the first place. I agree with you, there are some issues with a couple civs getting out of control and expanding crazily, but we have some ideas about that. We just can't agree on which ones would be best.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Really sounds interesting.
perilousride
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 67
I bought Civ 4 because it is an addictive game. I found out about mods, and played Rise of Mankind, which was far superior. However, the games went like this... after a while one civilization and I end up at war. All of my cities had to constantly build units just to keep up with my enemy (because that's basically what he was doing). All I did from ancient era to modern is build units, and finally I obliterated the said enemy, ended up with a few vassals, and had usually one other civ who was any threat to me. Besides that, now I just build up my cites and I will win. I had to wait unitl modern era to build up my cities, and now, by this time... the game was just boring. After a year or so, I would play again and go through the same thing.
This mod brought life back into the game, however, I discovered that it is far more interesting, rewarding, and fun to play the game like it is real-life. I am getting insight on what it would have been like, which I find fascinating. The games are much more exciting when I do that. The other way, I could win every time, but I would gain no satisfation. So, would I rather have more fun, or would I rather just play a game where I already know what I am going to do, and just follow a set order of procedures?
I really like to immerse myself in the game world, and I am really into world history. So it becomes so much more than a game when I play it that way. Not everybody does, but you pointed out why I play it. I play it because it is more than a game because it is like a historic "what if" interactive documentary the way that I want to play it.
You don't have to change anything because of that, but you don't want this game to be like Dragon's Lair arcade either (gameplay wise), because I can easily win if I follow the set procedures (tribalism, chiefdom, send hunters all over to subdue animals, get goody islands asap, archery, and most important build cites like mad and the buildings which give the most money). By this point I have already won the game and am building most of the wonders)... soon after I am building all of the wonders, and can knock off civs easy with units that are far ahead of them. That gives me even more power and game over half-way through the game. One thing about real-life is that it places limits. It keeps you having to stay on top of things. Any super powerful civilization in real-life was never safe, because even some weak civilzation can all of the sudden arise, and destroy you (Macedonia over Persia, Rome over Carthage). That can never happen in this game. If you are on top, it only becomes easier. The more powerful you are, the more you gain.
I would suggest that number of cities increases problems, culture helps build research, a city has to be over-populated before they even consider expanding... actually I would use real-life as a template because I think provides the most amazing challenge and keeps everything the most interesting. Just imagine how much more fun and exciting it would be to take an empire from scratch to greatness in a realiistic simulation rather than like a game. Just my opinion I know, but just putting it out there. I appreciate the mod, just that it is far superior when I play it that way, and this mod has so much potential.
PS, still the marble next to my city hasn't been revealed and I have sculpture, hard-hammer, and masonry. What tech does it take?
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
If the game is too easy you should try playing on a harder difficulty, but I suspect that is not your goal.
Sure its not Salt? Which is revealed at Salt Processing? They look similar.
Sure its not Salt? Which is revealed at Salt Processing? They look similar.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
Have you tried the SVN? Perhaps you can get that to work.
On the other hand, the next version is day(s) away from being released, so you almost might as well wait for that.
On the other hand, the next version is day(s) away from being released, so you almost might as well wait for that.
perilousride
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 67
I am pretty sure it is salt then.... whoops. Thanks!
And you are right, that is not my goal. I want my challenge to be the needs of my people... feeding them, space for certain needs, protecting them, eventually when some of us need to move on... but remain a part of us... it will happen. The challenges should be running a civilization. The challenge should not be just throwing cities and hunters out there... defending a city with an archer or two... and build buildings that make the most money.
Getting a civic should not be... oh divine cult helps me out more... so lets do it. Hey, we are early in my civilization's history, and these guys may get angry about me promoting myself as a god. Don't bring up revolutions, because I don't use it because it is not realistic either... just another set of procedures to follow. It should be...
1) Looking for water and food.
2) Somewhere to sleep.
3) What to do with waste.
4) Dealing with climate and stuff...
Not any set of actions, but these type of needs are universal and always apply. My people's survival should be the first challenge, then keeping them together. Advancement comes as a result of many things... not usually expansion. Roman history says they only expanded defensively, which you can understand their fear after being crushed and pillaged by barbarians. They advanced by stealing other civs technologies (most of it not through war... just influence). Nobody wanted the scum and villany they got in their little city, but that may have helped too... and hurt them. Their biggest boon was the organization of their society... which came from just a thought. They ended up with a structure that made them into a machine, allowing them to be much more productive.
In this game, number of cities can be the main and complete factor of success, with little else. Roman troops were always well fed, but who cares in this game. Let me just throw a bunch of cites out there, and watch the research explode. Everything after is just an afterthought, not part of the formula for success.
"Hey Mansa Musa, how did you take over the world?"
Mansa Musa: "I got tribalism before anybody else, got a few free techs from being first to research, not to mention the 18 cities I had by the ancient era. Build one city, then they build another right away. Got those civics to keep my economy in check, and built those money-making buildings. That's pretty much it. We didn't have to do much to win battles. We had Swordsmen going against peltists and stone axe-men LOL."
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@perilousride
Well if Nomadic start is put in then survival should be a factor for early game.
However I think there is still something to be said about more difficult settings. Because even if you are not in the lead you still have to defend against the stronger units. And just because say Mansa Musa has Swordsmen and you have Slingers and Stone Axemen doesn't mean you still cannot defeat them.
Well if Nomadic start is put in then survival should be a factor for early game.
However I think there is still something to be said about more difficult settings. Because even if you are not in the lead you still have to defend against the stronger units. And just because say Mansa Musa has Swordsmen and you have Slingers and Stone Axemen doesn't mean you still cannot defeat them.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
I have Assassin's (str 8) going up against Musketmen (str 20) and winning, all you need to do is promote them correctly. (Plus add a Warlord) I use Assassin's actually the most in taking DOWN units.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
The main problem that I'm seeing with everything you are saying perilousride is that you are trying to play the game in a way that it is obviously not intended to be played, and are complaining that it doesn't work well. Perhaps complaining is too strong of a word, but in your most recent post you are getting downright snarky about it, if not actually being insulting to the developers. I could be misreading your intentions, and if so I apologize.
Personally, I usually play on Noble (or the one just above it, can't remember the word offhand) and actually do play in much the same way you do. From my perspective, getting the techs and the units for Chasers, Trackers, etc IS realistic in and that any such of an early society would try to be as efficient as it can be in feeding it's people, and in the early to mid prehistoric Hunting just is the most efficient way. Most games anyway. I don't (generally) build a settler immediately after founding a city, I usually build the basics first (production and food). While I do get beaten to various techs and rewards, I get some of them as well, and almost always overtake the AIs by mid to late Classical, or perhaps a bit after.
I disagree that the Revolutions option is not realistic. Any large society must take care of it's people or they will rebel and leave. History has innumerable examples of this but two are the Roman Empire (too many to list) and the British Empire (America, India, etc). You have to take extra care of your outlying provinces, that's just fact. Try a game with it, you might just find that it helps add to exactly the challenge you are looking for. Taking care of your people. Using this will also (somewhat) help prevent an AI from dominating the map.
Personally, I usually play on Noble (or the one just above it, can't remember the word offhand) and actually do play in much the same way you do. From my perspective, getting the techs and the units for Chasers, Trackers, etc IS realistic in and that any such of an early society would try to be as efficient as it can be in feeding it's people, and in the early to mid prehistoric Hunting just is the most efficient way. Most games anyway. I don't (generally) build a settler immediately after founding a city, I usually build the basics first (production and food). While I do get beaten to various techs and rewards, I get some of them as well, and almost always overtake the AIs by mid to late Classical, or perhaps a bit after.
I disagree that the Revolutions option is not realistic. Any large society must take care of it's people or they will rebel and leave. History has innumerable examples of this but two are the Roman Empire (too many to list) and the British Empire (America, India, etc). You have to take extra care of your outlying provinces, that's just fact. Try a game with it, you might just find that it helps add to exactly the challenge you are looking for. Taking care of your people. Using this will also (somewhat) help prevent an AI from dominating the map.
I think you could kinda misread my posts, as I'm from Poland which means I'm not too good with English grammar.
I actually rushed for Trackers in my current game - 10 of them are killing on sight everything, that they can find on North America continent
. (GEM map)I love how is mod created, but wasn't sure what strategy I should choose.
Now I know that I must rush for hunting/religion techs. I can get tribalism soon, but apparently I escaped too far from other civilization so stopped with beelining for now - playing on Chieftain during prehistoric to test see how mod works. (I'll go to Warlord during Ancient and Noble during classical later).
Actually I found picking Creative, Scientific and Agriculture traits as first one can boost you up
So now everything is now fine.
perilousride
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 67
This is the best mod for Civ IV, and way better than anything Firaxis has come up with. I know it sounds like complaining, but what it is... it is because I like this mod so much.
Even for the way that I play, the game is perfect up until one civ gets Tribalism. So the game is awesome. Everything is fluid up until then. I notice at that point some civs fall so far behind, and I want there to be hope for them. The score will be something like I have 18, the leader has 25, and the lowest is 12. That isn't too bad. This is where things start to become far less exciting. The 25 score civ has tribal. Later on it is like the leader has 120 score, I have like 50, and the lowest has around 30. Eventually it becomes 200, me around 80, and the lowest around 50. So at this point I already know which civs have no chance at all to succeed, and we are only 8 percent or so into the game.
I am not so much worried about me. One game I played, around the time my civ got Chiefdom, I only had a few cities and a few units. Those units became bodyguard units for my leader. They went out hunting animals like mad, developing a thirst for new furs and the savory taste of meat. They kept winning and promoting. Eventually those two units were so powerful, I took out every city and civ I wanted at will.... with just those two units. They fought a stack of over 80 wardogs and won. Every civ had stacks of wardogs... some even over 100 on one tile! It is like the AI loves wardogs more than anything. Another weird thing I was noticing is that, even when I had far superior techonlogy every city had way more population than me, no matter what. It seems that every time I play.. like the AI cites grow way faster (rediculously sometimes)... but that isn't my complaint... just pointing that out there.
Even with all of those things, I have said that I know the way I play is my own... and that is fine. I was just pointing out what I have experienced, and every game I have played the biggest problem is one civ has over 20 cities, their closest competator has like 12, and some civs still have 4. At that point is so easy to predict what is going to happen, and it always does. The ones with the least cities are done. Game over for them. It is only a matter of time before they are almost wiped out, but they are irrelevent. The cities next in power to the leader will fight among themselves, and maybe one will come out on top... taking over another civ. However, the one with highest score... they built Petra, the Oracle, the Temple of Artemis, founded most of the religions, built Stonehedge, the Colossuss... you know... after a while they are building everything. It just becomes so redundant it is silly. The game is so good up until that point, that is why I have so much to say about it. Sorry if it sounds like I am ripping the developers, but I have said time and again I appreciate the work they put in... and it is a luxury to have a mod like this out there. It is the best Civ game hands down. I am just saying, no matter which way I play it, this is something that presents a major turning point in the fun-factor of every game that I have played.
As for Revolutions, it is a good concept, but the execution doesn't seem realistic. People won't revolt against a leader that they like... and that doesn't always have to do with their own circumstances. It may just be a popularity contest. It is just too complicated a thing to be simplified that... "our city is too far away from the capitol"... or something like that. Plus, the key too their happiness is too linary. Building them a brothel or something may make some people happy, but what about idealism. The Romans revolted against the Etruscans because of their lack of ideals, and the rape and death of a popular woman of virtue. That's not quite how the Revolutions mod works.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
OK, I see what you are/were intending much better now. Yes, many Civs only get low scores and have little to no chance of "winning", but that is actually realistic. Most of the Civilizations that have arisen on this Earth have gone away, whether by being conquered, climate shifts, or whatever reason. It's natural, it happens, and may still be happening. If you really feel that bad for them, take some on as Vassals. I think it may also be a flaw in the modified GEM scenario you are using. At least, it sounded like you said that you modified the base GEM, put the civs in different places, or something like that. You may have placed a couple of them too close together so that they just cannot grow past a certain point. Perhaps you should, just for a change of pace, try playing on a different map, one that is generated randomly. Try that and see if the results are any different. Just a thought.
As to Revolutions, yes distance is one factor, but far from the only one. If you neglect the needs of a nearby city, they might revolt. I've seen it happen (to an AI, so I don't know exactly why it happened), though not recently. I will agree that perhaps the execution may not be perfect, but (in my opinion anyway) it's more realistic than not playing with it on. With it off, you can treat your people terribly and they stay on regardless. That's not realistic. Idealism is in the civics, you may have noticed that many civics give various buildings modifiers, both positive and negative, to happiness. So this aspect is actually taken into account in the game, whether you are using Rev or not. As to the 'popular woman', this game just simulates broad aspects of the world, it doesn't get into that kind of detail outside of certain Events. However, if you wanted to create an Event where a city captured from a civ with vastly differing civics spawned such an Event, I'm sure that it could be worked in.
As to Revolutions, yes distance is one factor, but far from the only one. If you neglect the needs of a nearby city, they might revolt. I've seen it happen (to an AI, so I don't know exactly why it happened), though not recently. I will agree that perhaps the execution may not be perfect, but (in my opinion anyway) it's more realistic than not playing with it on. With it off, you can treat your people terribly and they stay on regardless. That's not realistic. Idealism is in the civics, you may have noticed that many civics give various buildings modifiers, both positive and negative, to happiness. So this aspect is actually taken into account in the game, whether you are using Rev or not. As to the 'popular woman', this game just simulates broad aspects of the world, it doesn't get into that kind of detail outside of certain Events. However, if you wanted to create an Event where a city captured from a civ with vastly differing civics spawned such an Event, I'm sure that it could be worked in.
Yudishtira
Spiritual/Creative
In my game only one civ (of the ten that started) is really struggling through its own fault. Another two are in bother because they're my neighbours - they were once the score and culture leaders respectively.
I've just seen a one-city Revolution civ DoW the guy in score second place to me, and actually threaten one of his cities, despite being way behind in tech. It remains to be seen if she'll take it (I should probably give her a hand), but still...
Sorry but I still think this is the problem.
I've just seen a one-city Revolution civ DoW the guy in score second place to me, and actually threaten one of his cities, despite being way behind in tech. It remains to be seen if she'll take it (I should probably give her a hand), but still...
Sorry but I still think this is the problem.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
This is why I play with limited Wonders on. Because even if they build a bunch of wonders they cannot build them all before running out of room in their city. And even if they make more cities they will not be large enough to make many of the wonders.
This might be annoying to people since it limits you from buildings all the wonders yourself but it at least spreads out the wonders to other civs so they get a boost and thus ore competitive with other civs.
Also if you want to make it really challenging on yourself, just never build any wonders.
perilousride
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 67
I said that the problem is that number of cities is the key factor to success. Anybody can just throw cities out there and defend them with a couple of archers. So get tribal and archery. If you have walls, they have no chance. Now, I don't need to even worry about feeding my citizens. Why? I am taking over part of the map instead, which is more important. Okay, so just build buildings by order of money that they make me. I have to get the civics based on the money they give. Now that I own such a huge portion of the map, have cities that they cannot possibly take for a long time to come, game over already. Now I have the lead in score and techs, and that will only increase... I will build all of the wonders and win. See, now I playing the game like it is a game. It's like in certain games, there are easier ways to win which are considered border-line cheating. If I don't do it, the AI will. So, yes, I may not decide to take advantage of it, but at least one civ in the AI does every game I have played so far. I can wipe them out, but now I have no choice but to send a couple of units all over the board killing animals, then everything else. When they have enough promotions I take these cities before they can get archery. So I have to interfere with the score leader to keep everything balanced.
I know it is realistic for civs to get wiped out, but they wont get wiped out yet. They will just sit there and do nothing. They can never recover, which is not realisitc, but fine. It is like I am only competing against a few civs, because most of the others will never compete. I know the AI is ******** by nature, and that is not the cavemen 2 cosmos teams fault... but there is an easy win procedure created that either me or the AI can take advantage of. That is building a bunch of cities and defend them with archers and walls, then build them up after you have the most cities. It is just a race to build cities, which I can always outdo the AI if I really push for it. In my games, at least one AI will always take advantage of it. So, you can take advantage of a part of the game that is imbalanced... and if you don't the AI can. This is all about that there is a part of the game that either me or the AI can take advantage of and win with (exploit).
I tried revolutions a long time ago. Maybe it changed, but when I used it, I kept saying to myself "like that would ever happen". It made everybody in my civ seem like they were the dumbest people ever on the face of the earth.
MagnusIlluminus
Emperor
There are more of those people than you think, and always have been. I'm guessing that you haven't heard much about the current batch of Republicans in the USA or the 'Tea Party' either.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions about these things, I'm not trying to say that you aren't. It just seems that you are doing everything that you can to make the game easier on yourself and are then saying that it's too easy. People have suggested various ways that you could make the game more interesting, but you ignore them and keep on ranting about parts of the game that haven't changed since vanilla Civ4, and never will change because they are part of the core engine. I'm sorry if these bits make you feel that the game is less realistic. If that's the case though, then perhaps instead of just ranting about them, how about you make your own mod where you fix the things you see as problems? I apologize if this comes across as harsh, but I can't help if you refuse to be helped.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
What difficulty are you on? Because in a Deity game I was playing, a neighboring civ declared war on me and took out a city with archer with their Baslista Elephants. I was so out numbered and out teched that the only way not to get wiped out was to give them one of my cities for a cease fire. When cease fire was over they of course declared war again but not before I built up a TON of defensive units in each of my cities.
And even if its a lower AI to our walls and archers, a good stack of units with some siege units and surrounding your city could take it out. That's not even using a Field General or Hero. Strategy, numbers and a but of luck can take out a more powerful opponent. Especially when the units have promotions.
Also there are other ways such as spies, thieves and of course diplomacy. The AI can be a real jerk in getting other civs to declare war on you. In my famous "global warming game" Dickish Spain would declare war on me with its two vassals. Then he would bribe Uber Mali with its 6 vassals to attack me as well. I had units attacking from every direction. Most of which were technologically equal or more because they most of their vassals were splinter civs that had the same tech level as their masters. And did I mention Spain caused tons of global warming that sent the globe into a Dune-like desert world with salt flats for oceans?
So yeah, Tribalism is just the beginning of the game. Come back and say the game is too boring after you have fought off Dickish Spain with their Clockpunk Golems on a desert world giving you terrain damage every time you step foot out of your city.
perilousride
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 67
This: there is a tech that gives you the ability to build cities. The AI doesn't know that their success is tied to it. No civ who gets it late is ever in the game. Those that get it first are. It is the most powerful and important tech in the game. It is everything. Your entire civs fate is dependent upon it. That is not part of the core-engine. The rest of this mod is AWESOME. I am just saying one thing that I think should be fixed.
I don't want to play another game and here we go again... one civ has way too many cities. It has happened every single game I have played so far. If I have to stop them personally, it means I can't just play the game the way I want to, so I have to interfere with every civ doing that to stop them.
As for what Hydromancer said, the archers make it possible to hold onto a massive amount of cities long enough, while only defending them with a few. If I race for archery, I have it before they can really threaten me. I realize they aren't completely invincible forever, but they make it possible to just hold them with one or two while I take over the map. Over time, you still have to tinker with a few things to make everything work, but the foundation is taking the map over, then deal with everything else after. If I am playing to win, how do I play sort of to win... specially if the AI is doing the same thing I would do if I was playing to win. What I am saying is neither me, nor the AI should be doing that, nor should they be able to. One tech shouldn't be so important. The AI just accidently runs into that tech quick enough, or they lose.
Plus AI civs with archery can build cities all over some other civ, and they only have a few units guarding, but the AI couldn't stop them if they wanted to. If they attacked the cities at that point, no chance at all. So there is really no penalty to having a whole bunch of cities guarded by only a few archers early game... which that AI civ will do once they get archery. I can figure out a way, but why do i have to do everything to keep one civ from ruining the game for the rest of the civs? It forces me to be a war-monger, even when I don't want to. So at one certain point of every game I have played so far, one or more civs bump into the most important tech in the game, then start pooping out cities all over the place and all over the rest of the AI. The rest of the civs don't even realize what is going on, and just sit there smiling and drooling, while I am forced to be a babysitter for the AI and keep the game under control by obliterating enough cities to salvage it.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Well a few versions ago there were much stricter restrictions on how many cities you could found. Thus solved many of he problem you have. Since it was impossible to found more than 3 cites with Chiefdom, 6 with Despotism, 12 with Monarchy and 20 with Republic. Beyond that you had unlimited cities.
Many people thought it was too artificial but I think it really gave the AI a chance to complete since there was so much open land for them to spread too. Now we have a less restrictive system where it gives you
if you go over the limit and the limits are WAY too easy.
Many people thought it was too artificial but I think it really gave the AI a chance to complete since there was so much open land for them to spread too. Now we have a less restrictive system where it gives you
if you go over the limit and the limits are WAY too easy.Similar threads
