Game Balance

Terrapin

Prince
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
505
I have played CivRev a few times and enjoyed it. I have won as high as Emperor, but not at Deity. One thing I have noticed is that my games usually follow one of two patterns wherein I either leap ahead quickly, picking up economic milestone bonuses and first-to-a-tech bonuses and win easily, or else I lag behind, never getting first-to-a-tech bonuses and struggling to get to economic milestones. The big difference maker seems to be whether I get enough gold for the 100g bonus settler early or if my warriors fail to find villages or I get anything other than money from them. In the latter cases, I struggle even at King. Is this a flaw in my game or do others have similar experiences?
 
It will be interesting to hear from some other players. I am thinking that the economic threshold bonuses and first-to-tech bonuses have the affect of reinforcing the advantage of whoever gets the early lead. That is a pretty fatal flaw in a strategy game.

I still play civ2 and that game has some countervailing effects which allow a civ which is behind (or at least is not already in the lead) to catch up. Namely, your tech research cost is tied to how advanced you are. If you are ahead in tech, your research costs are high. If you are behind, your costs are lower. (This can be abused when in the lead by gifting techs to inferior civs, but still allows you to catch up after a slow start.) Also, when you are low in the power ratings, other civs are nice to you. This means that you can win a game at Deity even if you get a bad starting position, though you might miss out on some tasty early Wonders. Does anyone know if CivRev has any such countervailing effects? Even if it does, I do not think they are strong enough. Has anyone been seriously behind in a Deity or Emperor game of CivRev and managed to catch up and win? If so, How?
 
I play Deity and am usually behind up to mid game where my ICS cities kick in (I try to occupy as many islands as possible and build libraries and markets - AI appears to ignore these in the main - also use choke points and then backfill) - the key to winning I beleive is minimizing the battle front and getting the two +5 gold techs first. I find the early game about survival I rarely go on the offensive and never before knights (often I get this tech too late to use) - I also never build wonders until late game. I do agree though the starting position is key, if you are surrounded by AI it is difficult to catch up as you are constantly having to renew defensive forces rather than turning out settlers/infrastructure. I find that if you can get tanks and battleships at about same time (or a little later) as the AI the game is won. In the late game although I do win by various methods they are all based on domination by crippling AI with tank/battleship combo. My best time though is in the 1950s therefore I am no expert. I do agree this is not like civ II (unfortunately) in CivRev the weak are punished - but of course the AI rarely fights each other just the human. In summary I find being behind is the only real enjoyment in the game if I turn into a power house early I dont return to that game.
 
I tend to be a defensive player and it took me a while to be comfortable with aggressive expansion, which is the key to Deity, at least in my experience. I think I played a dozen with Russia before winning at Deity. What I learned from Russia, and a few other civs, is how to expand somewhat quickly but not so quickly I cannot keep my cities strong. The AI gives about a 20 turn grace period during which I expand aggressively by building two or three warriors, switching to food tiles to grow my city to 3 pop, then building a settler in five turns. Around or before then I usually get the free settler also. This gives me three cities early. One is always a science city. The second new city can be anything, depending on what the map looks like. If I see a sweet production site inland, I settle it early, build barracks and let it grow. One of the other cities pops another settler for a second science/gold city. Sometimes I catch up quickly in science and pull ahead. Other times, depending on what civs I'm in with, I don't.

If the AI civs are nearby, aggressive, or Germans, I may fall into a defensive struggle. I always try to establish a strong city with good production forward, or a chokepoint, to take the hits, behind which my other cities can continue to build. Islands are lovely, and if I can, I settle one, build a settler, settle the next, and so on. Mainland, chokepoints are very effective when manned by the most current units, and are also good fun. In one Deity game with the Spanish, I took advantage of a natural chokepoint and kept three AI civs at bay by continually replenishing my little stone fort with pikemen, riflemen and, eventually, tanks. It was hilarious watching the AI stack archer and legion units up endlessly. My stalwart troops upgraded until they were invincible. No one ever got through and my two mainland cities kept cranking the production (East India Company, cathedrals, etc.) while my island cities cranked science and gold.

I find that if I play smart and focus on building both good defense (which includes siege units in the cities) and powerful infrastructure (gold and science buildings in their respective cities, good production, sufficient culture), I can come back late in the game. Big time. My cities outcrank AI cities. Games where I fall behind, then come back, generally end in an economic victory because some other civ, usually the Romans or French, is too far ahead in culture, leaving me few wonders to build--but there's still the World Bank. I've become very fond of being extravagantly wealthy in Civ Rev. :)
 
I am a Deity player, and have won as every civilization. Your starting position does not matter. In CivRev, all capital starting positions have 2 grassland, 2 forest and some sea + other squares (Except for India), meaning the start doesn't matter. I have been behind many times and have won on Deity. Unlike the computer versions, you don't have to pay maintenance on cities; no matter how far away or close they are. Because of this, you have to expand quickly, and have a lot of cities. The main difference between lower difficulties and higher ones are.

1) Building settlers before you have Republic. You have to expand before you get Republic. I usually have 4-5 cities before I have republic, and once I get these cities up I generally only work on building Libraries, Military units and more Settlers in my capital.

2) Knowing where to place your cities. This is key. Depending on what you're trying to do, you can specialize your cities or not.

3) City specialization. Here, you can find an article on city specialization, and it's benefits.

4) Rushing. I was never able to beat Deity until I learned how to rush. Now I can beat Deity playing aggressively or passively. Mostly, on Deity you MUST take advantage of opportunities. Unprotected cities or low-defense cities you must take.

You can't research every technology like you can on King difficulty. You must choose a route, and stick with it. Rushing to a certain tech is very useful, as you'll get the bonus. In most of my games, I usually rush towards Feudalism, Democracy and Religion. They all have economical and military benefits, making them great techs to beeline to.
 
Palaistea and Kadazzle, nicely put. I popped in this thread to offer some help or input and ended up learning a bit from the two of you. Nice contributions.
 
I usually play multiplayer, and I agree the first 25 turns or so makes a huge difference in the game. If you fail to get any barbarian huts, you will struggle to compete with other players, especially if they have successfully taken another capital city. It's possible, but it's difficult, and usually requires some luck.
 
Back
Top Bottom