1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ I Domination

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Iberian, Sep 9, 2010.

  1. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,614
    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.
     
  2. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    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.
     
  3. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    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.
     
  4. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,614
    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?
     
  5. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    It was a problem in Civ II. If you could choke off a good bit of land and backfill you dominated. Though really I do the same in Civ IV a lot. The problem though was the AI was stupid and attacked you one at a time.

    I guess the problem though is that there really is only one best way to play and that isn't fun. If you go play a game with all human players the focus is always on military. No one builds 5 cities and tries to space race it. You can't.

    To make Civ fun for those who don't want to have 40+ cities and 300 units you have to limit it.
     
  6. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I was attacked on multiple fronts in that game. Everybody hated me and wanted to fight me. The point was it didn't matter. And I really don't understand what you mean by only having one way of playing. I feel there are plenty. They handicap you if you try to go too far in one direction, but you're still capable of playing that way if you play smart.
     
  7. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    In Civ IV if you know how the AI works you can build just one unit per city for happiness. Unless you have Monty or Nappy nearby.

    I am pretty sure they will have to limit expansion with some other method other than military. Not everyone wants to move units all game. If bigger military = more expansion then the game becomes a military simulator since they positively reinforce each other. Military+expansion = More military + more expansion until you when.

    Oh well, I was hoping they could make it more like a human style game but I am not sure how it could be limited by military because it would force one play style unless you played below your level.
     
  8. _hero_

    _hero_ King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    771
    One of my favorite things in Civ II, on the harder difficulties, was going for the capital of one of these superpowers and causing them to go into a civil war splitting them in half. I remember one game even, where I caused a double civil war, taking their original capital and their replacement capital. Of course that would fall under a mechanic which can prevent a civ from running away with the game.

    Now, Civ V *will* have many of the mechanics that you mentioned in Civ III and IV, but with tech trading being removed, I think it will help. No more AIs keeping up in tech simply because they trade everything off at a discount to one another.
     
  9. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    The Civil war thing was awesome.

    I do think the no tech trading is a good idea, and I hope I get to choose a tech for taking a city again too.
     
  10. Svest

    Svest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    The AIs in CivIV don't keep up in tech because they trade with each other. At least not on high difficulty levels. No tech trading is going to hurt players much more than it will hurt the AI. Good players are always much better at tech trading, which is why the AI is programmed to value a player's offer less than the same offer from another AI.

    If you don't believe me try playing a game of CivIV on immortal+ with no tech trading turned on. All I can say to that is good luck.
     
  11. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    For sure, though I think some SG's have won still though I personally haven't tried it. I think though Civ V will probably not allow the AI's to cheat as much in techs as they do now on Diety.
     
  12. Svest

    Svest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    Ohh its not impossible to win without tech trading on immortal (haven't tried deity without it) I've done it as well. Its just MUCH harder than it normally is and requires a bit of luck. Basically you have to expand really hard and fast early and be double anyone's size (most likely done through rushing a neighbor). Then try to survive while your economy recovers and you develop the land. You'll get really far behind in tech for a while, but if you do it right you can eventually slingshot yourself back into the game as your land gets developed. As they say "land is power."

    I would also assume the AI will get smaller bonuses in CiV since a good portion of their bonuses were designed to offset the human's advantage in tech trading.

    I also wanted to mention something about the original topic. I find it odd how you mention not seeing a civ run away with the game very often. For me it happens all the time in CivIV, even on immortal. I've lost count of how many times I've been fighting muskets with infantry and tanks. Or how many times I've been racing (often failing miserably) to finish that last space ship part or legendary city before the giant behemoth swallows me up or gets the last few UN votes he needs.
     
  13. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475


    Maybe I just forgot what happens if you don't control the AI through diplomacy. It sometimes happens on another island but you can normally conquer your island and be as big. The only time you are in trouble is if you start out alone. You have to play the war game for a while to win that. I have yet to see the AI truly dominate though like it did in Civ I.

    If you played the Earth Map Russia would be impressive when they came to your land. They would have built and colonized most all of the map save the Americas. I always thought that was cool. If I played well it was America vs the USSR for the space race. Since there is no way I am going to conquer all that land.
     
  14. Svest

    Svest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    That I actually find quite interesting. Since in my experience on the earth map you replace Russia with China and that's exactly how it goes in CivIV when I play one of the new world civs. I dominate the Americas and China dominates the rest of the world and we race each other to space ships.

    Also, you are correct, the AI is only going to run away with it if you don't stop them in some way. Could be via diplomacy or could be simply gobbling up the land before they can get to it. But then I would ask; Isn't that a good thing? The game wouldn't be fun if the AI simply ran away with it and there was nothing you could do about it. the Ai should win the game because of something you either did or didn't do. Maybe the real difference is you are better at CivIV than you were at CivI. Maybe in CivI you didn't understand how to contain that AI before they got to the run-away point while in CivIV you do. The AI in CivIV can run away with the game just as easily as it could in CivI if you let them.

    Remember, the things that hamstring player expansion, like maintenance costs, have no effect on the AI on higher difficulty levels. They get huge discounts to maintenance. So if you want to see the AI expand like crazy, just give them the room to do it. Play on a big map with fewer civs.
     
  15. SomethingWitty

    SomethingWitty Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    533
    My favorite Civ experience remains a Civ II game on the hardest difficulty (diety?) on bloodlust mode (you had to conquer all the cities). I had a huge game, dominated pretty much the entire time. And still ended up losing by running out of time. My push to conquer the second to last civilization was stalled by some amazingly good nuke placements by the AI (I'm still impressed the AI did so well to this day, it wasn't that good by modern standards), and the last civilization being an island nation just beyond my effective, timely range.

    In Civ IV, I would typically turn off all victory conditions except domination and conquer. But the AI never really seemed capable of pulling off its own domination victories, and Civ IV fell a little short of being able to build really huge builder style civilization that are so much fun.

    With good AI, I'd think you'd still be able to have a great big dominate Civ that could get stymied by smart AI, such as what happened with my Civ II game.
     
  16. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    Maybe a lot has to do with me being better but I remember Civs in Civ I would win by domination fairly often. I can't remember a Civ in Civ IV winning by domination. Even in the Diety always war King of the Hill sceneario Russia was on a huge land mass and showed up with battleships and could be defeated. Granted most of the time you lost badly but that is a seriously stacked deck against you.
     
  17. Svest

    Svest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    That's actually because they made the domination victory condition much harder to achieve in CivIV. Its hard to control 60% of the land when there is so much of it in ice at the poles. Usually they just get close to domination and then simply win via UN. For that same reason I can't remember the last time I got an actual domination victory either. I just get enough vassals to give me the UN votes I need.
     
  18. Iberian

    Iberian Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    475
    In Civ I you needed to kill every last city. Even the size 1 built in the north pole city the stupid AI built. I would say the Civ I domination was harder.
     
  19. Svest

    Svest Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    97
    I might have misstated what I actually meant. In CivIV the AI will "accidentally" get a UN victory on its way to a domination victory. In that same way that if you are going for a domination victory you usually have to intentionally choose not to click the UN victory vote button even though doing so would cause a win.

    So it is harder for the AI to get domination because they are programmed to win if they can and the odds of getting the required land area + population for domination before just getting the required population for UN is small.

    I believe this is one of the reasons in CiV UN votes are 1 per civ and not based on population. Combined with no more vassals it means that you will not "accidentally" get a UN victory on the way to domination.

    Edit: Basically what I mean is I have never seen the AI get a "diplomatic UN victory." I have seen the AI on several occasions get, or get close to, a "conqueror's UN victory." This means they conquered enough of the world's population to simply vote themselves the world leader, but they didn't have quite enough land area for a domination victory yet. I've even had games where I, without razing any cities, got a conquest victory before I got the domination victory because there was just so much ice at the poles.

    This all assumes you are playing on a decent sized map, where there isn't really enough time to conquer the whole thing before the UN techs are reached.
     

Share This Page