onedreamer
Dragon
Carver, that's a totally different matter IMO. There should be a possibility for comebacks thanks to excellent strategies. Spearman defeating a tank is pure luck/nonsense.
Does anyone else lose interest?
- Thread starter rugger11
- Start date
The idea of 'comeback' (or lack of it) is central to design, especially for a game like this. There is rarely a right or wrong on these types of decisions.
Especially for computer games, many people like the idea that properly building their strategy and empire early in the game leads to a victory at the end. A 'comeback' almost always reduces the probability of this outcome, since there is some luck involved that can alter the compelte course of the game.
Conversely, a game that involves executing a proper strategy leads to inevitable victory faces the fact that the end game can involve going through the motions. Yes, you have built your empire properly,and now noone can stop you, so you just hit enter and watch.
I'm not saying there is no in-between, but it isn't easy. The 'Grandaddy' game for the CIV series is the Boardgame Civilization; this game did involve having a big lead meaning a lot, but also involve ability for late game comeback. But, for the most part, its easier to do comebacks in multi-player human games, where the players gang up on the leader. But then, these games are often more diplomacy games and I actually prefer the 'scientific' nature of a CIV IV type game.
The usual solution is upping the difficulty level -- unfortunately, this doesn't always work. So, if you find you have the game won when you reach 1800, play on a harder level. The probelm with playing on a higher level is that it may mean you are blown out of the water on higher levels, that you either 'win' or 'lose' at that point anyway.
I don't have a magic answer. Just about every empire building computer game has this problem of the endgame being anti-climatic, especially in games where expansion is favored. I can list 20 games with this issue.
I can, however, relate a personal experience. I've been playing on monarch, and winning about half of the time. I find that the game is effectively over in the middle ages. I'm usually a builder -- if I get away with building my empire as I want, I win later. If I lose, its because the AI beats me up militarily. Or, I conquer 2 opponents on on normal map, control 1/3 of the board, and winning is inevitable.
So, I'm trying to change operations. Maybe if I build more military, build up a little slower, I will still have enough to win most of the time if I pull it off, and maybe will lose fewer times militarily. And then the endgame will be closer. (Oddly, I'm finding that Protective is the best trait for me!)
I don't know if this will help anyone on this thread, but it is working for me.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Especially for computer games, many people like the idea that properly building their strategy and empire early in the game leads to a victory at the end. A 'comeback' almost always reduces the probability of this outcome, since there is some luck involved that can alter the compelte course of the game.
Conversely, a game that involves executing a proper strategy leads to inevitable victory faces the fact that the end game can involve going through the motions. Yes, you have built your empire properly,and now noone can stop you, so you just hit enter and watch.
I'm not saying there is no in-between, but it isn't easy. The 'Grandaddy' game for the CIV series is the Boardgame Civilization; this game did involve having a big lead meaning a lot, but also involve ability for late game comeback. But, for the most part, its easier to do comebacks in multi-player human games, where the players gang up on the leader. But then, these games are often more diplomacy games and I actually prefer the 'scientific' nature of a CIV IV type game.
The usual solution is upping the difficulty level -- unfortunately, this doesn't always work. So, if you find you have the game won when you reach 1800, play on a harder level. The probelm with playing on a higher level is that it may mean you are blown out of the water on higher levels, that you either 'win' or 'lose' at that point anyway.
I don't have a magic answer. Just about every empire building computer game has this problem of the endgame being anti-climatic, especially in games where expansion is favored. I can list 20 games with this issue.
I can, however, relate a personal experience. I've been playing on monarch, and winning about half of the time. I find that the game is effectively over in the middle ages. I'm usually a builder -- if I get away with building my empire as I want, I win later. If I lose, its because the AI beats me up militarily. Or, I conquer 2 opponents on on normal map, control 1/3 of the board, and winning is inevitable.
So, I'm trying to change operations. Maybe if I build more military, build up a little slower, I will still have enough to win most of the time if I pull it off, and maybe will lose fewer times militarily. And then the endgame will be closer. (Oddly, I'm finding that Protective is the best trait for me!)
I don't know if this will help anyone on this thread, but it is working for me.
Best wishes,
Breunor
How about some luck either good or bad? An earthquake or other giant storm takes out one of your cities for example. Maybe a huge technological (random) breakthrough for one CIV helps it leapfrog forward. Of course this can happen to you sometimes too... A random goldenage spurred by a very special great person? Heck, I don't know, but something random would be good. However, sometimes the random stuff could actually help the leader or hurt the weaker civs.
ratrangerm
Prince
I wouldn't mind seeing some random events pop up once in a while. The ones that appeared in the original Civ made things interesting.
Of course, you could prevent those events by constructing certain buildings. It might be what gets people to build their Aqueducts again, as given the new health model, fewer people build those because they can improve their health in other ways (remember, in the original Civ, you could have fires and plague strike cities without Aqueducts).
Of course, you could prevent those events by constructing certain buildings. It might be what gets people to build their Aqueducts again, as given the new health model, fewer people build those because they can improve their health in other ways (remember, in the original Civ, you could have fires and plague strike cities without Aqueducts).
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Sorry, but I could never really support any kind of wholly random event system. If nothing else, most people will simply quit if they think that their empire has been subject to nothing more than a 'roll of the die'.
Things like Plagues, Immigration and Civil War though-if their impacts can be minimized or removed via good management and planning-would probably sit well with all but the most petulant of player types
.
Aussie_Lurker.
Things like Plagues, Immigration and Civil War though-if their impacts can be minimized or removed via good management and planning-would probably sit well with all but the most petulant of player types
.Aussie_Lurker.
Sorry, but I could never really support any kind of wholly random event system. If nothing else, most people will simply quit if they think that their empire has been subject to nothing more than a 'roll of the die'.
Things like Plagues, Immigration and Civil War though-if their impacts can be minimized or removed via good management and planning-would probably sit well with all but the most petulant of player types
Aussie_Lurker.
That sounds reasonable to me. I am with you that it can't seem like you lost due to a roll of the dice, but at the same time, some luck (either good or bad) now and then would add a dimension that is missing. There shouldn't be a formula (build cities this way, specialize them, kick butt, repeat). The best laid plans should throw you for a loop from time to time...
ferenginar
Grand Nagus
I have always found the endgame to be a little tedious, but it does not matter to me what the scores are, or haw predictable the end result. The issue that I have is that as you approach the endgame the amount of things to operate each turn simply gets to great. I usually play on small maps but this is suffucient to have more than enough cities and units to make each turn last 5 mins. This is not a computer speed issue, its simply too much to do.
I know the goto command now works, unlike Civ II, but I still find build queues pretty useless for the most part as the build requirement cannot be accurately determined in advance. So far my only answer is to stick to smaller maps and go for early conquest. The SS victory remains outstanding though I have diplomatic, culture, and Time victories which are all late game.
I know the goto command now works, unlike Civ II, but I still find build queues pretty useless for the most part as the build requirement cannot be accurately determined in advance. So far my only answer is to stick to smaller maps and go for early conquest. The SS victory remains outstanding though I have diplomatic, culture, and Time victories which are all late game.
Robert_Marshall
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 64
I lose interest when I am clearly going to win, but still have to go through the motions to pull it off.
A late-game alien invasion is clearly the answer. 
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
i realized not too long ago i was spending more time reading about civ4 here than playing it. so now i have a new challenge for myself, winning at least once by every victory condition. currently on time, which i figure will be the most boring, so i'm doing it on normal speed (which feels very fast since i always play epic/marathon). diplomatic i expect to be the hardest, since i want to do it without having the votes just to vote myself in *giggle*.
then again, maybe you've won every condition already.
then again, maybe you've won every condition already.
A late-game alien invasion is clearly the answer.
They come down Independence Day-style in 2007, nuking every city on the planet in a surprise attack, and landing small but immensely powerful stacks of units at various points around the globe. If you're playing as America, you get a 100% bonus vs. aliens for every unit.
Arkatakor
King
I agree with your point - one problem I have with Civ4 in particular is that I find that the AI are too pacifist with regard to each other (not towards the human player, quite on the contrary).
They are simply not programmed to take into account who is winning (especially tech wise) and to try and form some sort of intelligent / coordinated alliance to take down whoever is in the lead.
I have played too many games where you have maybe 3 AI's on a massive continent and at least one of them will never be involved in ANY war throughout the ENTIRE game. This especially tends to be the case with the most high tech AI. They just sit there for 6000 years not waging a single war or being attacked and even thought they are leading, no AI attempts to take them down, instead they just focus on you, who is trying to stop the leading AI. Almost like a coordinated gay alliance.
This in itself makes the game unrealistic (as neighbors allways have disputes at one time or another). Need examples? China / Mongolia, Greece / Turkey, Germany / France, UK / Scandinavia (vikings). So for any Civ to simply not be at war for 6000 years in just unacceptable. I would like to add that as a result of this pacifism, the game becomes boring as a result, (especially late game where the high tech nation just stays ahead of the game).
I believe the introduction of unexpected wars, even between close allies could make things more interesting. In civ3 at least you could bribe the AI's 90% of the time to wage war on an enemy - their willingness to accept was based on what you were willing to give them instead of how much they liked you which is much closer to real world politics. Did Hitler and Stalin like each other? No, but they signed a non aggression pact in the late 30's.
Civ4 is the only game in the series that really suffers from this "AI pacifism towards each other". Yes they do wage war on each other but I hate seeing certain civs (usually the high tech ones) that are never involved in any war at any point in the entire game. For me, this is unacceptable and historically unrealistic. None of the other Civ series I have played had this problem, at least not on this scale. Oh, yeah, I tried choosing "more aggressive AI" - in that game all the AI declared war on me, and none towards each other. I have since uninstalled the game.
With the introduction of a patch that addresses this issue, I would be happy to give it another shot. Also, it would make the game more interesting towards the end.
They are simply not programmed to take into account who is winning (especially tech wise) and to try and form some sort of intelligent / coordinated alliance to take down whoever is in the lead.
I have played too many games where you have maybe 3 AI's on a massive continent and at least one of them will never be involved in ANY war throughout the ENTIRE game. This especially tends to be the case with the most high tech AI. They just sit there for 6000 years not waging a single war or being attacked and even thought they are leading, no AI attempts to take them down, instead they just focus on you, who is trying to stop the leading AI. Almost like a coordinated gay alliance.
This in itself makes the game unrealistic (as neighbors allways have disputes at one time or another). Need examples? China / Mongolia, Greece / Turkey, Germany / France, UK / Scandinavia (vikings). So for any Civ to simply not be at war for 6000 years in just unacceptable. I would like to add that as a result of this pacifism, the game becomes boring as a result, (especially late game where the high tech nation just stays ahead of the game).
I believe the introduction of unexpected wars, even between close allies could make things more interesting. In civ3 at least you could bribe the AI's 90% of the time to wage war on an enemy - their willingness to accept was based on what you were willing to give them instead of how much they liked you which is much closer to real world politics. Did Hitler and Stalin like each other? No, but they signed a non aggression pact in the late 30's.
Civ4 is the only game in the series that really suffers from this "AI pacifism towards each other". Yes they do wage war on each other but I hate seeing certain civs (usually the high tech ones) that are never involved in any war at any point in the entire game. For me, this is unacceptable and historically unrealistic. None of the other Civ series I have played had this problem, at least not on this scale. Oh, yeah, I tried choosing "more aggressive AI" - in that game all the AI declared war on me, and none towards each other. I have since uninstalled the game.
With the introduction of a patch that addresses this issue, I would be happy to give it another shot. Also, it would make the game more interesting towards the end.
What you speak is true but you will be told to try Blakes AI Mod.
King Flevance
Deity
I think the 'comeback' thing has alot to be said for it. The problem is that every good unit requires a resource. I think that some new units need to be brought into the PRS system that don't require resources. The resource dependancy in 4 is horrible. Sure it is nice to have there but a huge nation will have access to almost every resource if not every one and the smaller nation will be lucky to find copper or iron in their borders.
I think an idea of colonies coming in with an entirely new system or simply making some more units for each Era that dont require a resource and can still put up a decent fight need to come in. The game seriously lacks tactics beyond its simple PRS system. The only tactic to the game is PRS and power in size.
I know mods do help as Aussie Lurker pointed out but I think alot of people don't mess with installing mods for the most part. I hope the new expansion will actually address air/navy (that always gets mentioned I know) and adds in a few new units that arent so dependant on resources into the core game. It is not good for a game to require mods to keep the player from losing interest so easily.
I think an idea of colonies coming in with an entirely new system or simply making some more units for each Era that dont require a resource and can still put up a decent fight need to come in. The game seriously lacks tactics beyond its simple PRS system. The only tactic to the game is PRS and power in size.
I know mods do help as Aussie Lurker pointed out but I think alot of people don't mess with installing mods for the most part. I hope the new expansion will actually address air/navy (that always gets mentioned I know) and adds in a few new units that arent so dependant on resources into the core game. It is not good for a game to require mods to keep the player from losing interest so easily.
Building anything takes hundreds of turns. Recovering any losses takes other hundreds of turns. You loose too much half-way, you just lost, you destroy too much half-way, your opponent is just maimed.
It's all about how looooooooooooong it takes to build. Building anything is so slow that having stuff is more about conservation than about construction.
gnome
Warlord
I also agree that more frequent alliances among losing teams would up the interest... at first, in Civ2, I used to roll my eyes when the losing civs began to dogpile me... but in the next game when they more or less eliminated that I realized that the endgame was a lot more boring without it. I want to be constantly worried about my opponent, and in dire fear of nuclear war, during the modern era 
While I admit to abandoning my fair share of games, I think the Civ4 late game is much more competitive than the Civ3 late game.
Usually, if I am going for domination, an opponent will emerge who is far from a pushover. For example, in my current game Mansa Musa fought 3 wars with me as an ally. But he became to powerful: one of our enemies capitulated to him instead me (I assume because an AI army at higher difficulty is often numerically larger-- on my turn just prior to capitulation the option was red for me). So I now have to betray a friend with a formidable army and comparable tech.
One suggestion is I have is to play for a non-domination diplo victory or a cultural victory. In these situations I find I am usually not #1 in score, and behind in tech. The risk of a war you cannot afford is always present (and sometimes happens). Sure sometimes these games do devolve into hitting "end turn" 10-20 times in a row-- but even if that happens I find it much easier than micromanaging units over the same period for a win.
Usually, if I am going for domination, an opponent will emerge who is far from a pushover. For example, in my current game Mansa Musa fought 3 wars with me as an ally. But he became to powerful: one of our enemies capitulated to him instead me (I assume because an AI army at higher difficulty is often numerically larger-- on my turn just prior to capitulation the option was red for me). So I now have to betray a friend with a formidable army and comparable tech.
One suggestion is I have is to play for a non-domination diplo victory or a cultural victory. In these situations I find I am usually not #1 in score, and behind in tech. The risk of a war you cannot afford is always present (and sometimes happens). Sure sometimes these games do devolve into hitting "end turn" 10-20 times in a row-- but even if that happens I find it much easier than micromanaging units over the same period for a win.
Melhisedek
Prince
you need to use a good mix of mods, single player and multiplayer.
Then I never get bored
Could you please recommend a few
gnome
Warlord
I use either Total Realism Gold (by itself) or a combination of Look and Feel, Better AI, Better Balance (available same site) and Bad Ronald's flags...
julienheadley
Chieftain
i totally agree with that. it's exciting until you know you're gonna win. then it's boring. i quit and play again. if i'm losing i'll often play on. i just don't wanna give up!
i don't care about finishing. for me, the fun part is playing.
i don't care about finishing. for me, the fun part is playing.
Similar threads
