Civ I Domination

[D-Man777]

If you all love cIv (1) mechanics so much, I have a suggestion:

Play cIv. Some of the best games EVER came out early last decade (early 90's)

Uhh, wasn't that two decades ago? God, I'm old...

 

[Iberian]

You're making an assumption of what fun is for other people. Personally, I don't find it fun when a game "cheats" for the players who are behind so that they can catch up. Mario Kart got old really quick because the best player had a similar winning margin not matter how well they played or how badly other people played. It didn't take long for me and my friends to just stick exclusively to battle mode and just ignore racing mode.

Imagine if basketball had a rule that if a team is down by at least 10 points, they would score double points until the deficit goes below double digits. It would make the late game more fun in the short run, but I would think that people would sour on a rule like that pretty quickly.

Well put.

In addition this game generally isn't 1v1. It starts out 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 but can quickly become 3v1v1v1v1 if some people realize their nearest neighbor is getting out of hand. If the AI can look at the demographics and realize someone here is getting huge and team up to take you out that is fair to me. If they all just try to pursue their own victories and game mechanics help make this close at the end that just doesn't seem realistic or fun. Many alliances were made to fight an enemy who was getting too big. We have a lot of wars to prove it, not to mention WWI and WWII arguably the largest ever.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The math is all well and good except your values are wrong so naturally is the answer. How many times in Civ IV have we won after being significantly behind for most of the game? How is it possible?

1. Their is a penalty for having too many cities. This means as you get more cities it actually starts to bring down the rest of your empire. This makes it so no one gets too many more cities than anyone else.

You can if you've invested in infrastructure. If you have enough gold from the cities you have, you can afford to expand and take over other cities. As long as you keep the gold coming and build courthouses as appropriate, there isn't a physical cap on empire size. Also, your expansion at the expense of other civs weakens them.

2. Techs cost less as others discover them. So if you are in front in tech it actually doesn't help you get more techs rather you pay more for each one you discover than those who come after you. The biggest bonus going to the person in the last place. No one gets too far ahead.

That bonus isn't pronounced enough to make a giant difference. Afterall, you also get a bonus because you have more gold to turn to beakers. Ever see a city that's been reduced to a couple of marginal cities? They're usually half an era behind at all times.

What I hope for is a game that doesn't hold anyone back to make it close. It should be close because the talent of the players is at parity. Even if this means the AI gets bonuses to make it close I am fine with that. I just don't want a sliding scale that actually rewards staying small and insignificant. World super powers aren't small.

Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, China, Mongolia, France, Spain, Great Britan, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA. All super powers at some point none of them small.

That being said, Rome and especially China are good examples of large empires stagnating. What did Rome do after it conquered the Mediterranean? It stopped expanding. It was threatened by small German tribes on one side and a large (but not as large and more culturally united) Parthian/Sassanian Empire on the other side. In that sense, the smaller civs were able to rise up and beat the larger one because the larger one couldn't compete. China is even more analogous. The large, monolithic China was once far more advanced than the west. Then the smaller western states, through competition with each other, manged to catch up and surpass the larger state in the east. Both with Rome and with China, the largest did not manage to steamroll the rest and continue to expand.

 

[Pazyryk]

It's also fun to have a smallish (say real life British Isles-size) nation be able to compete with the bigger nations, or even dominate the globe for a while. Civ4 did this better than all previous versions, and it is largely due to those rubber-band mechanisms. You don't want a system where big always get bigger. Not realistic and (more importantly) not as interesting from gameplay perspective.

 

[Iberian]

You can if you've invested in infrastructure. If you have enough gold from the cities you have, you can afford to expand and take over other cities. As long as you keep the gold coming and build courthouses as appropriate, there isn't a physical cap on empire size. Also, your expansion at the expense of other civs weakens them.

2. Techs cost less as others discover them. So if you are in front in tech it actually doesn't help you get more techs rather you pay more for each one you discover than those who come after you. The biggest bonus going to the person in the last place. No one gets too far ahead.

That bonus isn't pronounced enough to make a giant difference. Afterall, you also get a bonus because you have more gold to turn to beakers. Ever see a city that's been reduced to a couple of marginal cities? They're usually half an era behind at all times.



That being said, Rome and especially China are good examples of large empires stagnating. What did Rome do after it conquered the Mediterranean? It stopped expanding. It was threatened by small German tribes on one side and a large (but not as large and more culturally united) Parthian/Sassanian Empire on the other side. In that sense, the smaller civs were able to rise up and beat the larger one because the larger one couldn't compete. China is even more analogous. The large, monolithic China was once far more advanced than the west. Then the smaller western states, through competition with each other, manged to catch up and surpass the larger state in the east. Both with Rome and with China, the largest did not manage to steamroll the rest and continue to expand.

A. I know you can expand but the point is that it isn't advantageous because the game mechanics make each city cost more.

B. Rome and China failed because whoever was playing them started using the governer and automating their workers! They failed because everyone does who gets to the top. It will happen to America too. For the sake of gameplay though I don't want to try and implement theories on why ever civilization falls. I want to be the leader that builds a civilization to stand the test of time.

 

[Iberian]

It's also fun to have a smallish (say real life British Isles-size) nation be able to compete with the bigger nations, or even dominate the globe for a while. Civ4 did this better than all previous versions, and it is largely due to those rubber-band mechanisms. You don't want a system where big always get bigger. Not realistic and (more importantly) not as interesting from gameplay perspective.

When the British Empire dominated it wasn't a small island group. It was India, part of China, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and tons of other colonies. In civilization in real life bigger is almost always better. Small is never that great. China and India will probably be the next super powers because of their size.

Now maybe people living in Switzerland will have a 10x better quality of life but that doesn't help in the aspect of who is able to impact the world. You have to have something big to make a difference. Either a culture you spread, a large economy, a large military, brilliant scientist, something. Switzerland for all the great things it has doesn't make a difference like China, India, USA, or Saudi Arabia. Realistically the top 10 nations in GDP move the world the rest follow.


*No offense to the Swiss I just randomly picked them. Go Federer.

 

[Iberian]

But what is the test of time if you can become "too big to fail" less than half way through the game?

Its only a test if you can fail at every point.

I agree that if most games you could get to this point it wouldn't be fun. Even 1 in 4 would be boring to me. I love a challenge. What I am saying though is that I want the other AI's or Humans to stop me, not game mechanics.

China can't go and conquer Japan or even some small island somewhere without other Civilizations stopping them.

I was going to say the USA but I guess we pulled the Iraq thing so maybe it isn't always applicable.

 

[Iberian]

How can players do anything if it isn't through game mechanics?
If you have a really strong start, then even if the AI plays as well as you they need something to be able to have a chance to overtake you. Even if all you want is for them to unite to take down the leader; then you're programming the AI to gang-bang you if you reach a certain stage, and thats just as gamey if not more than giving them a slight research boost.

How do human players do it? If I am playing with 6 other civs I have two options if I notice someone else is starting to take off.

1. I make an alliance with some others saying, hey he will kill us if we don't stop him now.

2. I will go kill some of these others and try to keep up with him.

If the AI notices myself or another AI is getting huge they better attack me, because I will not be so nice to them when it is their turn to die. That isn't gamey that is real life. I am not saying the all of a sudden every AI devotes everything to kill you but more like a human player it says how can I win. I can attack him with X force to slow him down while allying with Civ B which will allow me to continue to grow in my chosen strategy of Y. If I notice that 3 civs are trying to take down a large civ I may use that time to kill one of them in an attempt to pull myself up to parity with the largest.

It is more fun to play a dynamic game than it is to play I want to play my strategy and not worry about the world because in the end we will be close to even anyway.

 

[Pazyryk]

When the British Empire dominated it wasn't a small island group. It was India, part of China, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and tons of other colonies. In civilization in real life bigger is almost always better.

"Almost" is the key word here. Great Britain (before it ruled India, China, etc.) was able to take on those larger nations. Great Britain became a large empire, but it's worth noting that it no longer is (bigger didn't get bigger in that case). Many small nations have had a lot of power/influence in world affairs. On the other hand, China has been and remains a very large nation, although it has been little or greatly powerful/influential at different times. So I'm not saying big should be universally crippled. But if the game is well balanced then small can (at least sometimes) beat big.

 

[Drawmeus]

On the one hand, I like having a clear winner. On the other hand, I rapidly grow bored when there's a clear winner and the game hasn't technically ended yet. Usually I end up retiring. This is true whether I'm winning or losing.

My favorite approach is when there is a reset, but it's a clear demarcation where the game is going to reset, so I can say "I won that part of the game" and then move on to the next part.

 

[Iberian]

"Almost" is the key word here. Great Britain (before it ruled India, China, etc.) was able to take on those larger nations. Great Britain became a large empire, but it's worth noting that it no longer is (bigger didn't get bigger in that case). Many small nations have had a lot of power/influence in world affairs. On the other hand, China has been and remains a very large nation, although it has been little or greatly powerful/influential at different times. So I'm not saying big should be universally crippled. But if the game is well balanced then small can (at least sometimes) beat big.

Britan was physically small but no one else was larger really at that time. Spain was falling and after the British Navy took over there was no one really to threaten them. The Dutch were expanding but not as big, the French weren't able to compete due to their own internal struggles, the Russians, Germans, and Italians also not able to stop them. No one at that time was really bigger than them except the Spainish who lost the war pretty much solely on the ocean due to better tactics from the British and some luck.

In Civ it would be like taking Spain down by realizing they are over extended trying to defend all the territory they have and noticing that a majority of their military might is in ships. Then getting some ships that can beat theirs, moving them well, and some luck from the RNG. Everyone else wouldn't be looking to stop you because they would be too worried with their own infrastructure issues.

 

[Countmonte8242]

I agree with you OP.

The modern era of Civ 1 was probably more fun than any game in the series. Civ2 was right there as well. 4 was terrible. And its because of the reasons you cite. You could fall behind or jump ahead in tech in either game and still it wouldn't necessarily be over. I also hate the artificial limitations on expansion that Civ4 had, but in the context of that game they were probably necessary. I mean the late game was bad enough without it being possible for the top Civ to get armor when you still had muskets or phalanx. It was fun in Civ 1, probably would have made Civ 4 worse.

I'm hoping that Civ 5 is going to be a reversion back to some of what we got in the originals. Some of the new mechanics hopefully indicate that (no stacks of doom, no tech trading, etc.)

 

[Iberian]

I agree with you OP.

The modern era of Civ 1 was probably more fun than any game in the series. Civ2 was right there as well. 4 was terrible. And its because of the reasons you cite. You could fall behind or jump ahead in tech in either game and still it wouldn't necessarily be over. I also hate the artificial limitations on expansion that Civ4 had, but in the context of that game they were probably necessary. I mean the late game was bad enough without it being possible for the top Civ to get armor when you still had muskets or phalanx. It was fun in Civ 1, probably would have made Civ 4 worse.

I'm hoping that Civ 5 is going to be a reversion back to some of what we got in the originals. Some of the new mechanics hopefully indicate that (no stacks of doom, no tech trading, etc.)

I hope so. Going back to less units should help a lot. Not having everyone selling every tech will too. In Civ I you wouldn't give them a tech unless you got something good for it. In Civ IV you know everyone is going to have it next turn so you better get what you can for it. I will sell a tech for 50 gold because it is better than nothing.

Back to the basics of what made Civ fun. Not hitting spacebar till you have that 1 tech lead and then rusing 100 riflemen to get to domination.

 

[Drawmeus]

Any time one civ gets waaaaay ahead of the others, one of three things has happened. Either A) random factors (like combat dice and start location) have accumulated in favor of that civ to a huge degree, B) there is a massive skill difference between the two players, or C) one player has cheated. Which of those is really the kind of case you'd like to see happen often in games of Civ?

 

[Iberian]

Any time one civ gets waaaaay ahead of the others, one of three things has happened. Either A) random factors (like combat dice and start location) have accumulated in favor of that civ to a huge degree, B) there is a massive skill difference between the two players, or C) one player has cheated. Which of those is really the kind of case you'd like to see happen often in games of Civ?

A little of column A and a little of column B.

You can't have stictly B in AI maps and it be fun. Everyone would have to have the same start and be equally distant from each other and a bunch of other impossible setups. A little from column A makes it fun. Winning or losing mostly from B is what makes it rewarding. Though we all read Sid's test on what people view as "balanced" odds. So maybe we like a little from C as well.

 

[Zhahz]

IMO, the game mechanics of civ have moved forward for the best. It's a game and most people want it to be competitive. If you regularly have "runaway civs" that means the game isn't balanced very well.

I think you could have some semblance of runaways in Civ IV, it was just less likely due to game balance and map setups (for competitiveness). Under some circumstances you can definitely have tech/other gaps and if some civ ends up alone on a large landmass they'll fill it and get powerful.

 

[Pazyryk]

4 was terrible. And its because of the reasons you cite. You could fall behind or jump ahead in tech in either game and still it wouldn't necessarily be over.

I'm hoping that Civ 5 is going to be a reversion back to some of what we got in the originals. Some of the new mechanics hopefully indicate that (no stacks of doom, no tech trading, etc.)

Well, it's amazing how much I can disagree and agree with two points in the same post. I love the idea that weak civs can become powerful, and visa versa (it happens in the real world and it makes both real world and gameplay more interesting). I'm also exceedingly excited that the designers seem to be looking at the big picture effects in cutting/redesigning specific mechanisms: especially 1upt (more strategic), no tech trading (always a goofy game-within-a-game that you had to to play to win at higher difficulty) and my favorite, no more research slider (so and are no longer completely interchangeable).

 

[andrewlt]

How can players do anything if it isn't through game mechanics?
If you have a really strong start, then even if the AI plays as well as you they need something to be able to have a chance to overtake you. Even if all you want is for them to unite to take down the leader; then you're programming the AI to gang-bang you if you reach a certain stage, and thats just as gamey if not more than giving them a slight research boost.

Every single sport doesn't have a rubber band mechanic and they work well. If you played like trash in the first half of the game and got blown out, the referees shouldn't call more penalties/fouls/yellow cards on the other team to make the second half more competitive. That's not the fun type of competitive.

 

[Zechnophobe]

A. I know you can expand but the point is that it isn't advantageous because the game mechanics make each city cost more.

That is so completely wrong it makes me really wonder if you've played cIV. Yes, your empire costs more, but each city in time will produce more than the cost increase of creating it. Managing your economy so that you always grow, while also building more economic infrastructure, works.

The point of increased costs is that it makes it not *always* the best decision to place more cities. Sometimes you need to slow down and develop them first... so you don't go the way of the Romans.

 

[Pazyryk]

Every single sport doesn't have a rubber band mechanic and they work well. If you played like trash in the first half of the game and got blown out, the referees shouldn't call more penalties/fouls/yellow cards on the other team to make the second half more competitive. That's not the fun type of competitive.

Yes, but in most games if you sit on your butt for the last half you lose, no matter how far ahead you are in the first half. An analogous statement can be made for real empires in the real world. However, this is not true for the most part in civ games. If you are ahead in the first half, you don't have to do much of anything but hit end turn over and over.