Civ I Domination

[Drawmeus]

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.

A little of A and a little of B (and a little of C to cover systematic deficiencies in A as needed) is important for fun games of civ. You SHOULD blow out the computer when you're playing on a difficulty "too low" for you (scare quotes because individuals might have the most fun playing on difficulties lower than they could win on). There should be randomness to the maps and to the combat, and there should be those games where everything goes right for a civ and they get a huge edge just from that.

But if that's happening a lot, the game gets boring. If combat randomness and map randomness is decisive all the time, it will swamp skill and you'll feel like you're just winning/losing at random. If the AI is much worse than extremely good players even on the highest levels (and doesn't cheat to compensate; I'm sympathetic to the idea that programming a legitimately top-tier AI for Civ might be much too expensive to be commercially viable), then the game quickly becomes boring because it's no challenge.

You should have games where you just dominate, but when you're playing at the right difficulty level, they should be very rare.


By the way, on Civ IV's maintenance mechanic - this is only a "punish the top, reward the bottom" mechanic if you view land area as the measure of a civilization's expected power. It exists in Civ IV not to keep the weakest Civ relevant but to make it so that other factors besides simple land area calculations are important for figuring out which Civs are strongest and which are weakest. You also have to factor in important resources, a strong diplomatic position and development level of cities.

 

[Iberian]

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.

I can see you played Civ IV but probably not I or II. In Civ I you could build 100 cities if you wanted to. We all know what happens in Civ IV if you try. Even when I find I am on an island that holds 10 cities I can't fill it near as fast as I could if there was no penalty for building cities. You have to build slow.

The cost is added to help make the game work but I would rather it not impose those types of limitations on your empire. Instead make it dependent on how well can I defend those cities.

Think about how you play Civ IV. You expand as much as you can limited by either cost or neighbors. Then you play the tech trading game and the diplo game until you can draft riflemen to go with your canons. At least generally this is the easiest way to win. You really don't have to defend your cities. Half the time I still have archers in most of my cities when the game is over.

The real cost of building a city shouldn't be limited by gold but by its protection. In the original Civ I book it talks about balancing guns vs butter. If I choose to expand fast I won't have as many military units/per sq mile to protect my land. This will make it easy for the other players to take some of my land and even up the game. Conversely if I stay small but build up a large military /per sq mile then I should be able to take advantage of some of my neighbors. In Civ I if you didn't have a phalanx and a chariot in each city you probably lost a lot of them to the mongols.

This should limit expansion because a new city won't be able to defend itself to the level necessary to fend off barbs much less a rival Civ without support from your main force. If you built 5 cities in rapid succession chances are you will lose them unless you had pre-built a large military to hold them.


I don't want run away Civs in 9 out of 10 games, it isn't fun. I just want my opponent to prevent it not the game mechanics.

 

[Iberian]

By the way, on Civ IV's maintenance mechanic - this is only a "punish the top, reward the bottom" mechanic if you view land area as the measure of a civilization's expected power. It exists in Civ IV not to keep the weakest Civ relevant but to make it so that other factors besides simple land area calculations are important for figuring out which Civs are strongest and which are weakest. You also have to factor in important resources, a strong diplomatic position and development level of cities.

In Civ IV land is power. If you can get a 10 city start you almost always win.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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

It is advantageous to expand, it just takes time to recover your investment

for example...
Get new city... requires either cost of Settler/Military units
To make that new city Profitable you need to
1. grow the population
2. build appropriate buildings (Courthouse, Market, Temple, etc.)
3. get sufficient culture

All the while paying the cost.

There is NO difficulty level at which a fully developed Civ 4 city would lose money (at the appropriate tech... a ancient world empire would be impossible) unless it was in a terrible spot (as in less than 3-4 workable tiles... even all water would be fine eventually)

Civ 5 looks similar... if you found a city and build a colluseum in it, you have enough happiness for the city and a small population (enough to work the tiles to easily pay for the colluseum) higher tech provides more ability for this city and others to expand and grow.

So once you have Construction, you can have a world spanning empire. Every new city will make you stronger... once you develop it.


Also..."Land is power" BUT
"10 tiles of Developed Land > 20 tile of undeveloped land"

Where development refers to City Buildings, Tile improvements, etc.

as for "defend those cities"
Civ is NOT a war game, you need to DEVELOP your cities not just defend them.

 

[Iberian]

It is advantageous to expand, it just takes time to recover your investment

for example...
Get new city... requires either cost of Settler/Military units
To make that new city Profitable you need to
1. grow the population
2. build appropriate buildings (Courthouse, Market, Temple, etc.)
3. get sufficient culture

All the while paying the cost.

There is NO difficulty level at which a fully developed Civ 4 city would lose money (at the appropriate tech... a ancient world empire would be impossible) unless it was in a terrible spot (as in less than 3-4 workable tiles... even all water would be fine eventually)

Civ 5 looks similar... if you found a city and build a colluseum in it, you have enough happiness for the city and a small population (enough to work the tiles to easily pay for the colluseum) higher tech provides more ability for this city and others to expand and grow.

So once you have Construction, you can have a world spanning empire. Every new city will make you stronger... once you develop it.


Also..."Land is power" BUT
"10 tiles of Developed Land > 20 tile of undeveloped land"

Where development refers to City Buildings, Tile improvements, etc.

Each 1 city will pay off. Try building 5. You lose. The game mechanics limit me. Not my opponents, the game. I don't want the game to limit me I want my opponents to do that. If they are stupid and let me expand doom on them. If they realize this guy over expanded, lets help him out be relieving him of some of those cities, that is awesome.

Land still is power. You can have your 10 developed tiles. They give you an advantage for maybe 30 turns. Soon my 20 will be twice what yours are. If you win in Civ IV with a small territory it is in spite of the fact not because of the fact. Having more land than you currently have pays off unless the game mechanics cripple you too much to recover.

 

[Drawmeus]

In Civ IV land is power. If you can get a 10 city start you almost always win.

Sure, but if you spam out 20 cities as fast as possible (before you've developed to the point where you can take it), you will almost always lose, and god help you if some of them are overseas. In Civ 3, you simply wouldn't stop at 10.

 

[Drawmeus]

Each 1 city will pay off. Try building 5. You lose. The game mechanics limit me. Not my opponents, the game. I don't want the game to limit me I want my opponents to do that. If they are stupid and let me expand doom on them. If they realize this guy over expanded, lets help him out be relieving him of some of those cities, that is awesome.

Land still is power. You can have your 10 developed tiles. They give you an advantage for maybe 30 turns. Soon my 20 will be twice what yours are. If you win in Civ IV with a small territory it is in spite of the fact not because of the fact. Having more land than you currently have pays off unless the game mechanics cripple you too much to recover.

I see part of the issue here. You're conflating domination with having as many cities as you want, consequence-free (if you can defend them).

In Civ IV, you can achieve runaway domination over the map; it's not even difficult. What you can't do is just build as many cities as you want. In Civ I, Civ II and Civ III, these things are one and the same; building many more cities in those games is dominating the world. In Civ IV, they are decoupled; you can't simply read off a civilization's power from its number of cities. You can have a 10 city empire which is much more powerful than a 30 city empire, if having 30 cities makes that empire financially weak.

You don't like the Civ IV model. That's fine. Incidentally, it's a really easy thing to mod out of Civ IV; just set the city maintenance to zero (I don't recall exactly where to go to do that, but I'm pretty certain you can do it just in XML). Personally, I always thought the unlimited cities with no consequences thing was both annoying to manage and unrealistic and was not sad to see it go, but hey, different people find different things fun.

 

[Iberian]

I see part of the issue here. You're conflating domination with having as many cities as you want, consequence-free (if you can defend them).

In Civ IV, you can achieve runaway domination over the map; it's not even difficult. What you can't do is just build as many cities as you want. In Civ I, Civ II and Civ III, these things are one and the same; building many more cities in those games is dominating the world. In Civ IV, they are decoupled; you can't simply read off a civilization's power from its number of cities. You can have a 10 city empire which is much more powerful than a 30 city empire, if having 30 cities makes that empire financially weak.

You don't like the Civ IV model. That's fine. Incidentally, it's a really easy thing to mod out of Civ IV; just set the city maintenance to zero (I don't recall exactly where to go to do that, but I'm pretty certain you can do it just in XML). Personally, I always thought the unlimited cities with no consequences thing was both annoying to manage and unrealistic and was not sad to see it go, but hey, different people find different things fun.

The problem with Civ I was the AI really didn't think and try to stop you. Especially as a team. What sucks in IV is that you can sit and build 5/6 cities and still win because the AI never attacks you and is stupid when you attack it.

What I hope for in Civ V is that the consequences from building 30 cities is that my opponents know I can't defend them and takes them from me. I don't want the game to do that for them.

Modding Civ IV won't help because the AI is still worthless when it comes to war.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Each 1 city will pay off. Try building 5. You lose. The game mechanics limit me. Not my opponents, the game. I don't want the game to limit me I want my opponents to do that. If they are stupid and let me expand doom on them. If they realize this guy over expanded, lets help him out be relieving him of some of those cities, that is awesome.

Land still is power. You can have your 10 developed tiles. They give you an advantage for maybe 30 turns. Soon my 20 will be twice what yours are. If you win in Civ IV with a small territory it is in spite of the fact not because of the fact. Having more land than you currently have pays off unless the game mechanics cripple you too much to recover.

Why do you lose when you build 5 cities?... oh that's right its because those cities are not developed enough for them to help defend themselves. and developing takes a certain amount of time.

Civ is not
More military units->more land->more military units

It is
More Military units->more land->more development->more military units

You complain that you should only have to defend your cities... you DO only have to defend your cities. They will not get taken away because of maintenance costs.

Undeveloped cities don't help you defend. That is your problem, undeveloped cities Hurt your defense.... but developed cities help it (always... you can have an empire of 5,000 cities in civ 4 if the map is big enough... even without Beyond the Sword Corps or religion)

Complaining that the game mechanics slow my expansion economically is like complaining that my military units have limited moves+attacks... if I'm strong enough why can't I attack all of the enemy cities. Why do Forests, etc. slow my troops down, I have more/better troops than them, I should just win.



also
10 developed cities-> 10 developed cities +20 undeveloped ones
happens MUCH faster than
20 undeveloped cites->10 developed cities+20 undeveloped ones

that is why the first is better.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I can see you played Civ IV but probably not I or II. In Civ I you could build 100 cities if you wanted to. We all know what happens in Civ IV if you try. Even when I find I am on an island that holds 10 cities I can't fill it near as fast as I could if there was no penalty for building cities. You have to build slow.

I have not played Civ 1, but I played SO MUCH civ 2 it hurts. I am very well aware of the constant settler spam that game engendered. It was a really bad decision for the balance of the game, because it skewed the player decisions in the direction of 'always expand'.

The cost is added to help make the game work but I would rather it not impose those types of limitations on your empire. Instead make it dependent on how well can I defend those cities.

Why not? There are a myriad of different restriction imposed on the game. Tech's cost science for instance, and aren't free. Units require production, and better units require MORE production. Empires cost money, and bigger ones cost more money. Civ 2 at least had unit support costs. Why not complain about those... why not let someone build an army as big as they want?

Think about how you play Civ IV. You expand as much as you can limited by either cost or neighbors. Then you play the tech trading game and the diplo game until you can draft riflemen to go with your canons. At least generally this is the easiest way to win. You really don't have to defend your cities. Half the time I still have archers in most of my cities when the game is over.

Same was true in Civ 2 in regards to having a lot of absolete units. You'd build them just for the happiness. Civ 4 is actually more dangerous in general for this type of behavior, as some AI's are pretty warmongering, and capable too.

The real cost of building a city shouldn't be limited by gold but by its protection. In the original Civ I book it talks about balancing guns vs butter. If I choose to expand fast I won't have as many military units/per sq mile to protect my land. This will make it easy for the other players to take some of my land and even up the game. Conversely if I stay small but build up a large military /per sq mile then I should be able to take advantage of some of my neighbors. In Civ I if you didn't have a phalanx and a chariot in each city you probably lost a lot of them to the mongols.

Except that isn't true. You don't need a unit density over your entire empire, only those areas where bad people may show up. And bigger empires have more production making it easier to sustain a large army. If I have 20 cities, and you have 5, I could have 1 unit per city, and you could have 2... but I still have an army twice the size. Barring ridiculous mobility, that's pretty much always a win for the bigger empire.

This should limit expansion because a new city won't be able to defend itself to the level necessary to fend off barbs much less a rival Civ without support from your main force. If you built 5 cities in rapid succession chances are you will lose them unless you had pre-built a large military to hold them.

So.. if you sent off 5 lonely settlers without escort they wouldn't survive long? I guess that should go without saying. But building a few defenses for them is pretty simple. You are also only considering from the point of equilibrium. let's say it takes 2 cities (1 producing a settler, another producing defenders) to quickly expand, this was generally true in civ 2. If you have 6 cities, you can do that 3 at a time, or 2 at a time and the other two focus on development. If you have 10 cities, it is even easier.

The point is, that rarely does growth lose to non growth if you have no other reason not to grow. That's why these effects are good.

I don't want run away Civs in 9 out of 10 games, it isn't fun. I just want my opponent to prevent it not the game mechanics.

I can't understand how these are different things. The game mechanics are what dictate what the opponent can do right? Or do you mean like having your friend come over and knee-cap you for growing too fast?

 

[QuothTheRaven]

I had an extremely difficult time finishing those Alpha Centauri and Civ IV games where I have a runaway lead. When I'm so far ahead that I can't possibly lose, I stop caring about efficiency and end up just queuing up 1 of every building in each city so that they don't bother me as much, and just mindlessly hit "end turn" until I can get a space race or diplomatic victory. Often times I don't even finish the games, since I know that I've won, but it'll take another 3-5 hours of play time before I'm able to get a victory out of it.

It's cool for a little while to have an absurdly overpowered empire, but the effect wears off and gets stale pretty fast, at least for me. I understand how seeing game mechanics that prevent you from being more powerful could be frustrating, though.

 

[Iberian]

.

Civ is not
More military units->more land->more military units

It is
More Military units->more land->more development->more military units

Really? You play that way? I sure don't. None of the games on Immortal+ played in the forums are.

That is what I want. That is how I want to play.

Realistically though in Civ IV the best way to play is:
Expand->Develop->go from zero army to massive army = win

I want to start off having to have a military. Not making it optional. Having to be able to defend the land I take. In Civ IV you always destroyed who you attacked because it sucked having the unhappiness and you could defend 10 cities just as easy as 20 with the same army.

I think we are talking about the same thing. I just don't see Civ IV as being that. I am wondering if Civ V is from those who played it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Really? You play that way? I sure don't. None of the games on Immortal+ played in the forums are.

That is what I want. That is how I want to play.

Realistically though in Civ IV the best way to play is:
Expand->Develop->go from zero army to massive army = win

I want to start off having to have a military. Not making it optional. Having to be able to defend the land I take. In Civ IV you always destroyed who you attacked because it sucked having the unhappiness and you could defend 10 cities just as easy as 20 with the same army.

I think we are talking about the same thing. I just don't see Civ IV as being that. I am wondering if Civ V is from those who played it.

So you would appreciate a game where the Map was covered in cities in 4000 BC... most of them Barbarian cities, that would attack you.

 

[Iberian]

So you would appreciate a game where the Map was covered in cities in 4000 BC... most of them Barbarian cities, that would attack you.

Not sure how you are coming to that conclusion. I want the game to make it necessary to have a military. To make that the driving force behind being able to have cities. The city count will probably remain the same but the penalty for expanding too fast will be it will overextend your army vs the penalty for expanding too fast being cities cost more.

The first is having the AI / human opponent do something to stop you. The second is having a game rule do it.

I actually would like it to slow expansion. In most Immortal/Diety games the map is filled super fast. In our history it didn't fill up quite so fast.

What seems more fun to you? A game rule stopping your expansion or having to manage your army to protect your lands from the START and prevent others from acquiring new lands?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What seems more fun to you? A game rule stopping your expansion or having to manage your army to protect your lands from the START and prevent others from acquiring new lands?

Well I prefer having to develop my lands from the start.
PS its game rules that would force you to defend your lands from the START.

And the Game rule doesn't stop your expansion... it just says you need to develop you cities From the start.

And the best way to make Defense necessary is for you to ALWAYS be surrounded by other players... every city you get you take from another 'player' (even if that 'player' is a city state)



Perhaps you would perfer a game with Raging Barbarians +++, so that defense is more important.

 

[Iberian]

Well I prefer having to develop my lands from the start.
PS its game rules that would force you to defend your lands from the START.

And the Game rule doesn't stop your expansion... it just says you need to develop you cities From the start.

And the best way to make Defense necessary is for you to ALWAYS be surrounded by other players... every city you get you take from another 'player' (even if that 'player' is a city state)



Perhaps you would perfer a game with Raging Barbarians +++, so that defense is more important.

The problem with Civ IV is you can expand with no army and play Sim City till you get riflemen.

And it is a game rule. The rule says each additional city will cost more gold. Each distanst removed from capital will cost more gold. These are capped based on level, ie monarch. That is the game itself limiting me. If there were zero other units on the map I can only expand so fast.

I want how fast I expand to be controlled by my opponents and how well they play vs how well I play.

My guess is you like the Sim City meta game or you are just arguing.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The problem with Civ IV is you can expand with no army and play Sim City till you get riflemen.

And it is a game rule. The rule says each additional city will cost more gold. Each distanst removed from capital will cost more gold. These are capped based on level, ie monarch. That is the game itself limiting me. If there were zero other units on the map I can only expand so fast.

I want how fast I expand to be controlled by my opponents and how well they play vs how well I play.

My guess is you like the Sim City meta game or you are just arguing.

Scouts can only move two spaces. It is a hard cap regardless of level. You cannot expand your map with a scout more than two spaces out a turn (or so depending on terrain). The game has set an artificial limit on how much you can explore.

 

[Iberian]

Scouts can only move two spaces. It is a hard cap regardless of level. You cannot expand your map with a scout more than two spaces out a turn (or so depending on terrain). The game has set an artificial limit on how much you can explore.

This is a good example of where the game should limit you. There really isn't a better way to have your opponent do that.

Having expansion limited by your opponents provides more decisions to the game.

Comes back to the question- Is it more fun to have your expansion limited by city maintenance costs or by rival civs?

Maybe the answer to you is different because you want to have no army and build a huge civilization just by developing cities. I think it is more fun to have to build and use an army all game not just in then end or even never if I go space race.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I remember last game I played in Civ2. I quickly expanded and conquered two of my neighbors. Then I decided I wanted to sit back and go for a space race victory. The problem is the AI kept attacking me and I kept conquering them. The problem was that, each time I'd defeat them, they had less and less chance of beating me. It got the point where I had no problem defeating enemies on all sides. Simply put, since expansion had no limits, my strength increased exponentially. It ended up being frustrating because I had to constrain myself. I would defeat enemy units, but not take their cities. It was the only way to avoid a conquest victory.

The point is that the game is set up to offer balanced options. If you want to expand militarily, that's fine. More cities gives you more unit support, greater access to resources, and more production. But it's designed to give diminishing returns in order to allow those with different play styles to still be competitive. But, in the end, a large civilization with a good infrastructure will always beat a small civilization with good infrastructure. The game still rewards expansion if you do it right.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This is a good example of where the game should limit you. There really isn't a better way to have your opponent do that.

Having expansion limited by your opponents provides more decisions to the game.

Comes back to the question- Is it more fun to have your expansion limited by city maintenance costs or by rival civs?

Maybe the answer to you is different because you want to have no army and build a huge civilization just by developing cities. I think it is more fun to have to build and use an army all game not just in then end or even never if I go space race.

I don't remember ever building a Civ without an army. Are you asking if people should be forced to build nothing but military units?