CIV 4 - "Where's the Beef?" a Meat and Potatoes take on the game

[Nuh Uh]

Thanks DH. A very thoughtful and informative post -

 

[Nuh Uh]

Note: for me, mind you, an extended period of time would be 2x as long as currently available.

 

[microbe]

Looking at the string of SG's running, I find none of them captivating. I mean most of them are downright boring if one takes away the novelty factor of a new game.

I have not been following SGs much, but I guess it's excusable as most of the games are on a very low level so the AI isn't really competitive.

 

[lucifer316]

Are you wanting to take a business course? Because not only would it be MORE FUN to many people (a fact that most with their heads up their bottoms are oblivious to), but it would be more profitable, and in business terms, that makes smart strategy - using the versatility of the product to tap into other venues of the same market (I should be getting paid for this...).

actually you are completely wrong in terms of increasing profitability

yes there are those who might find it more fun and adds to the game and makes it more of what they are interested in

those folks already buy the game there is no reason from a business perspective unless you are worried about losing them to cater to them especially if they are a small segment

those who dont buy the game now who are pure wargamers and dont buy the game because it isnt a pure wargame arent going to just because you add this one concept

if you want those people the entire war component of the game would need to be reworked and that would take away from the rest of the game and that would cause a problem with the games core fans

but in fairness this was never meant to be the type of wargame you want it to be

but i do understand your pain enjoying what is a niche in gaming and trying to find something to meet your needs can be quite difficult

as a d&d gamer who wants turn based d&d rpgs i understand entirely the pain of watching other segments of the market get everything they want and you get nothing

but remember this wasnt a wargame that was hijacked and turned into something else

this game is what it always was

their grabs are going to be for big segments of the market not small ones

this game is more likely to make changes in line with rts games than it is with war games for that reason as you say money

oh wait they already have

 

[Nuh Uh]

Forgive me, but I'm not in the habit of taking any commentary from someone who names themself Lucifer and shows up on their 8th post (speaking of REALLY bored people... ahem), seriously, especially when its clear into the third sentence, that they don't understand my position, as presented, and its ramifications on business, playability, and enjoyability. Moreover, I don't care to debate the issue of 'profit', which by all accounts, would not suffer, as the feature would enhance the game, especially when the issue was raised by 'cornball' logic - IMO.

 

[lucifer316]

Forgive me, but I'm not in the habit of taking any commentary from someone who names themself Lucifer and shows up on their 8th post (speaking of REALLY bored people... ahem), seriously, especially when its clear into the third sentence, that they don't understand my position, as presented, and its ramifications on business, playability, and enjoyability. Moreover, I don't care to debate the issue of 'profit', which by all accounts, would not suffer, as the feature would enhance the game, especially when the issue was raised by 'cornball' logic - IMO.

you know what i tried to be polite with you but you are nothing but a 13 year old troll

my post number has zero to do with anything so bringing it up shows a clear lack of intelligence on your part seriously

i do understand your position you are looking for something that you want added to the game and have zero evidence that doing it will make the game more enjoyable for anyone but you unless i missed your posted evidence

provide your proof that this will sell them more games if you can

as for the profit not suffering you are correct if only the change you suggested was made profit would not suffer however if only the change you suggested was made profit would not increase

unless you can prove that profit is guarateed to increase with this change or that it is guaranteed to decrease without it your bringing profit into the discussion seems to be nothing more than diversionary at best since you have no proof of anything you say

you are a child who wants what you want and will lie and make things up in order to get it

and anyone who disagrees with you no matter how polite is flamed and insulted by you

so come on little boy what is your next insult going to be better make it quick im sure daddy will be home from work soon and want his computer back

 

[lucifer316]

oh and by the about taking someone seriously when they show up on their 8th post and post something

the irony of that statment is incredible as im sure you will find out if you count the number of posts you have in this thread and subtract it from your post total

i counted 49 post and 57 total

do the math

 

[doronron]

Wow. Just...wow. NU, your name is strikingly appropriate, given the general attitude you've displayed in this thread. You don't get out much, do you?

I've been designing board games for going on eight years, now. I began with building games for friends to play on a friday night, and have a great deal of experience testing games in the face of actual gamers. I know for a FACT that the second you begin adding conditional modifier after conditional modifier to the rules (movement, attack, whatever), your players' eyes will start to glaze over and they begin to lose interest in playing the game.

First and foremost, a game is designed to be fun for the players involved. The mechanics need to be easy to understand. If a player has to work in order to be successful at a game, a frivolous activity at best, they're just not going to play that game anymore.

While it is possible for computer games to hide a lot of the formulas under the hood, gamers do need to know how those formulas work. Take a look at Paradox games, and you'll see the biggest complaint is a lack of documentation on the more complex portions of the game (like combat).

Civ, in contrast, makes everything easily accessible to the player. It provides clear cut, intuitive cues for the player to gauge his or her performance. It cuts back on the more complex things that'll make peoples' eyes glaze over, and instead works them into an abstract, easy to follow set of rules. Supply is covered by your units' slow healing and incapacity to use the roads. Anything more hurts the overall design, and Civ's design as it is has been very successful.

Of course, considering my post contradicts your standpoint, you'll be shouting "Nuh Uh!" at the top of your lungs.

 

[Abacus]

I just found this thread, and I think you have some great ideas for a mod. Personally I'm happy with the game, though there are some things I'd like to mod too. At least we have that option, which is pretty rare for a game at this level of technical and artistic development.

As you pointed out, it's not a holodeck simulation of WWII, sadly. But intelligent, interactive software is still well beyond the state of the art. I agree the new advisor screens are pretty bland - which is surely a consequence of the decision to generate the screens from Python scripts - but I for one love a few of the new leader animations.

Anyway, enough commentary. I actually wanted to comment on your supply proposal:

#3 There is NO SUPPLY in this game. If you are going to be planning the activity of armies, you need to ask yourself - "where's the SUPPLY?" Realism, of course is an element, but the real problem is that the lack of this component removes a large percentage of strategy from the table of the gamer who likes to simulate war and engage in 'war strategy'. Why they don't include it - I'll never understand. Its a simple rule - in supply = full strength - out of supply = half strength. How do you tell? Are you able to trace a path to a friendly city unobstructed by the enemy? Yes? Well then, you're supplied! It's BASIC STUFF.

Not being a wargamer, I don't understand that supply rule. Don't armies bring their own supplies with them? Those supplies would run out eventually, but they could steal food from the local population. Ammunition wouldn't run out until it was used. Ancient and medieval units don't need ammunition. Modern armies could airdrop supplies.

And a unit wouldn't be at half strength after a year without supplies. They'd either find supplies, surrender, rout, die of starvation, or fight a suicial battle for death and glory. Personally I wouldn't like a rule that says, "if a tank column flanks you, your modern infantry become as strong as medieval knights."

Adding supply doesn't seem simple at all, and this is one of those places where the game abstracts concepts like that. For example, there's no explicit "siege" rule, but you can starve a city by blocking its farms, or make the people refuse to work by cutting roads and taking away the citizen's supply of luxuries. Or assault the city, if you can accept the losses or destroy the defenses.

I'm also not a military historian, but doesn't supply of units in reality depend on the type of unit? It's probably too complex to be implemented in the game, in a way that would work believably for swordsmen, knights, marines, helicopters, tanks, galleys, submarines, and carriers (to name a few). So the game abstracts again with limitations on units in enemy territory, like slower healing, slower movement, more expensive maintenace (simulating bribing ancient soldiers to stay loyal so far from home and airlifting supplies to modern units, perhaps?). Not completely realistic, but neither is half strength for units without a clear path to home.

Anyway, I'm not training for world conquest here, just enjoying a challenging game.

 

[Cave Troll]

If the game moves too fast for you I suggest you look at this thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134109
It is really neat, I love how you can mod just about every aspect of this gamw with just a text editor.

Edit: Dont know if this has been metioned on this thread yet.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Of course, considering my post contradicts your standpoint, you'll be shouting "Nuh Uh!" at the top of your lungs.

LOL. The 'Nuh Uh' is for your benefit, because I find the lack of open-mindedness with most forums not to be laudable (unlike the sentiment contingent with the gravity of, indeed, beating a dead-horse). Especially so with the population that's JUST GOTTA argue, regardless if their position has merit. Your post for instance, like the chorus of flamers to this thread who use multiple identities and the like (...vacuous, any-who...), takes a precept - like 'enjoyment' - and then attaches it to their position as if it speaks for the community or 'reality' in general. It doesn't. Ask me if I care about the many specious claims of AUTHORITY on the issue. In the end it boils down to common sense and basic human psychology. The more versatility, the better the game, and I really couldn't possibly care less, but suggest that, unlike the trolling population you are sympathetic with, that you actually read the post, or otherwise 'learn' what Advanced Options are in relationship to the substance of this post. You might then understand that my constructive criticism is innocuous to your sensibilities, which I find to be precocious and strangely obtuse in light of the obvious strategic advantage of AUTOMATED supply.

 

[Nuh Uh]

If the game moves too fast for you I suggest you look at this thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134109
It is really neat, I love how you can mod just about every aspect of this gamw with just a text editor.

Edit: Dont know if this has been metioned on this thread yet.

WOW. Cave Troll - thanks a lot. Very interesting, indeed!

 

[doronron]

LOL. The 'Nuh Uh' is for your benefit, because I find the lack of open-mindedness with most forums not to be laudable (unlike the sentiment contingent with the gravity of, indeed, beating a dead-horse). Especially so with the population that's JUST GOTTA argue, regardless if their position has merit. Your post for instance, like the chorus of flamers to this thread who use multiple identities and the like (...vacuous, any-who...), takes a precept - like 'enjoyment' - and then attaches it to their position as if it speaks for the community or 'reality' in general. It doesn't. Ask me if I care about the many specious claims of AUTHORITY on the issue. In the end it boils down to common sense and basic human psychology. The more versatility, the better the game, and I really couldn't possibly care less, but suggest that, unlike the trolling population you are sympathetic with, that you actually read the post, or otherwise 'learn' what Advanced Options are in relationship to the substance of this post. You might then understand that my constructive criticism is innocuous to your sensibilities, which I find to be precocious and strangely obtuse in light of the obvious strategic advantage of AUTOMATED supply.

See? What did I tell you? This roughly translates into "Nuh Uh!". You haven't provided a single original thought since your initial post, and instead have spent the bulk of your time belittling anyone who's dared to disagree with you in even the politest of tones.

You have no authority on the subject. None. You've provided no support for your claim that more complex is better. In contrast, all we have to do is look at a Paradox Game to show that people run away in droves from anything too complex for their entertainment. It's Axis & Allies vs. any Avalon Hill title. It's Risk vs. Axis & Allies.

You're wrong. Period. You're just bitter that people can see that fact, and pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument. Including the fact that Civ already takes into account supply.

 

[Nuh Uh]

LOL. Whatever. Like I said, I don't care if I'm right or wrong (as if you are the judge of anything), but making claims the way you do without ANY substance, you should be seeing the little yellow clown in the mirror right about now. No, I give your position zero credence. Not because of your position itself, but because of your affinities, and obvious NEED to be right. Here, try this - "WOW, what a great leader of clarity! What a level-headed and FAIR minded person! What depth of understanding and overall mastery of the issue! What a SWELL guy."

 

[Nuh Uh]

You're wrong. Period. You're just bitter that people can see that fact, and pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument. Including the fact that Civ already takes into account supply.

P.S. This is how I know you don't read my posts - or at least - comprehend them. The previous points, that you blur over, are that the maintenance and transportation issues are separate of the 'effects' of being unsupplied. But, it reaches a point, where you know the same mentality, and the talking to a wall becomes the joke itself. A living, breathing CARTOON of reason and overall mockery of the purpose of a forum; being one of education, personal growth, and social development (I see through things, btw, like the fan-club of gamer inertia).

 

[zeeter]

P.S. This is how I know you don't read my posts - or at least - comprehend them. The previous points, that you blur over, are that the maintenance and transportation issues are separate of the 'effects' of being unsupplied. But, it reaches a point, where you know the same mentality, and the talking to a wall becomes the joke itself. A living, breathing CARTOON of reason and overall mockery of the purpose of a forum; being one of education, personal growth, and social development (I see through things, btw, like the fan-club of gamer inertia).

Nuh Uh - you're right. I've been wrong all along. Everything that you've said has been far superior to the things that I have said. You're smart. I'm dumb. You're ideas are good. Mine suck. You're good looking. I'm....not attractive. I bow down to your superiority and wish that I could be more like you. Tomorrow I am buying a Nuh Uh t-shirt and will send a tithe to you.

 

[Vael]

Wow, very impressive troll. Tame and serious enough to attract attention while stinging enough to keep people coming back. A+. Still, I expect more from people than to have them drawn in so much. Don't seem to realize it only prompts him to continue.

 

[AKauhanen]

Nuh Uh does make good points.