This thread has me wondering, what ever happened to civs all ganging up on the leader? Seems that in CIV2 if anyone got too far ahead, other civs tended to turned against them. Does that happen in CIV3? I've never seen it happen enough to matter. It would be great fun to be part of a general revolt against the leading Civ - that is, IF the other CIVs did a decent job of helping out with the war...
Gameplay Balancing through Small Wonders
- Thread starter dh_epic
- Start date
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
This one's a pretty contraversial one. I personally have reason to hate both Civ 2 and Civ 3.
Civ 2 is challenging, but people feel as though it's unfair and unrealistic.
Civ 3 is realistic, but dreadfully easy.
My complaint is that in BOTH cases, there's no real competition. It's really you versus the collective computer.
In Civ 2, the AI civs try to collectively stop you, although they can't actually defeat you or win.
In Civ 3, the time limit is the only thing to stop you, but there's no civ that will step up and defeat you or win.
I don't know which I hate more. The stupid one or the boring one.
Civ 2 is challenging, but people feel as though it's unfair and unrealistic.
Civ 3 is realistic, but dreadfully easy.
My complaint is that in BOTH cases, there's no real competition. It's really you versus the collective computer.
In Civ 2, the AI civs try to collectively stop you, although they can't actually defeat you or win.
In Civ 3, the time limit is the only thing to stop you, but there's no civ that will step up and defeat you or win.
I don't know which I hate more. The stupid one or the boring one.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Lewsir said:
Yeah, that was always fun, being invaded with three times the number of troops I have. Actually it was a great game balancer that made being super-dominant interesting. I eventually learned about how far to stay ahead of everybody, until I was ready to win. Of course dh_epic is right about the computer always ganging up on you. I really wish they would change the AI so the computer would evaluate threats and go from there. From what I have heard, they made the Civ 3 AI a lot less competative because the design team thought that Civ 2's AI was much too competative.
dh_epic said:
As for international trade, I decided to leave out the middle-man of any ports, because that adds a lot of math I do not care to comtemplate. If anyone else can figure out how to add in that math, go ahead because the midde-man should get something.
A couple changes I am going to make.
1) Now domestic trade is like international, except the demand-supply scale is a lot larger. 1-50=1gpRP, 51-150=2gpRP, 151-300=3gpRP, 301-500=5gpRP
I cannot imagine demand would be higher then 500 RP per source. ALso, if your cities can get the resource cheaper on the international market, they will.
2) Players can decide to put quotas on trade to certain nations. This might increase prices for cities, however, as they must limit the number of sources they draw from.
Here is how people are connected. Cities must be connected to other cities on the network. As long as you are connected to one city on the network, you are connected to them all. Connections are- being 3 tiles away(allows for early trade), connection via river, road, railroad, harbour, airport. Colonies would also have harbour/airport properties.
Whenever everybody figures out where they buy from(international or domestic), then they put the money in the prospective pools. The money is then evenly distributed to the city that owns the resource based on what percentage of the resource they control.
Here is what else cities get when they trade. Each city gets a point of culture per RP traded(for vendors this is calculated based on % of pool). The vendor also puts in a point of their culture in the buyers city(useful for future takeovers) per RP traded. EAch city also gets a science beaker per RP traded. Certain facilities increase the amount of culture and research that is generated with trade. Anything that increases science and culture now will increase them from trade. Also, trade connection buildings will increase these numbers(harbours/airports/etc.).
Here is a new idea to make airports and harbours more useful for making money, besides the massive amount of trade that occurs. There is a pool of travelers. It starts at 0 at the beginning of civliization. Every 10 turns a point is added from every city. If the city does not have any more populatoin to add, then it does not. If it looses population, so does the pool. The pool is devided by the number of harbours, and the harbours city gets 1 gold and 1 trade per person it services. Once Flight is discovered, a point per city is taken every 10 turns from harbour pool. THis means that over time the sea travel will lessen, and the air travel will increase. The number of people per airport is figured out the same way, air travelers divided by airports. EAch air traveler gives the city 2 gold and 2 trade.
dh_epic said:
sir_schwick said:
All true, and yes I agree it could be infuriating to have everyone ganging up, but it does kind of make sense for civs to do that (I'm sensing it beginning to happen around the world right now, in fact, relative to a certain very dominant country). But I guess it would be better to have a more creative method for balancing things...
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Geez, I wish I was an economist -- of course, that makes perfect sense.
If the nation has lots of oil, it will be cheap, so they'll buy it on the domestic market.
If the nation has very little oil, their oil supply will be expensive, so they'll buy it from international sources who sell it cheaper than it is domestically.
This can all be automated, making resources more strategic.
As for balancing through the AI, I honestly wouldn't mind a "catch-up" algorithm. Since it's been impossible to create an AI that won't get too far ahead or too far behind, I think having an AI that cheats to stay right on your tail would actually be something I'd welcome. I'd also combine a few of these AIs with a few of the Civ 3 AIs -- who just play like they don't care about winning, who play for "realism". This way you have the best of both worlds -- a handfull of top notch competitors, and many more victims/allies to make the world your stage.
If the nation has lots of oil, it will be cheap, so they'll buy it on the domestic market.
If the nation has very little oil, their oil supply will be expensive, so they'll buy it from international sources who sell it cheaper than it is domestically.
This can all be automated, making resources more strategic.
As for balancing through the AI, I honestly wouldn't mind a "catch-up" algorithm. Since it's been impossible to create an AI that won't get too far ahead or too far behind, I think having an AI that cheats to stay right on your tail would actually be something I'd welcome. I'd also combine a few of these AIs with a few of the Civ 3 AIs -- who just play like they don't care about winning, who play for "realism". This way you have the best of both worlds -- a handfull of top notch competitors, and many more victims/allies to make the world your stage.
Iztvan said:
This one I actually like, but for the most part I hope they don't pursue this line in Civ4. Underdog civilizations in history, like players in the game, survive and recover because of brilliant manuevering or changes in luck, not because of some sort of cosmic handicapping. Or else they die/lose. No one steps in to save them (unless they're the Jews . . .)
Civ already gives us crippling corruption for large empires, a four turn minimum for research, and severe problems arising from occupying conquered cities. If you're consistently falling behind, play at a lower level. If you're the one swamping the competition, play higher. In multiplayer, underdogs should work together to undermine the frontrunner. As Paul Atreides said, it is the nature of power to come under seige.
One change I would endorse is making AIs more hostile to frontrunners, although they do already tend to gang up on me when I'm ahead.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I guess the problem isn't so much realism as gameplay.
You can play at emperor 5 times and get stomped into oblivion one of those times, and smoke the competition 4 of those times. The game has a really hard time remaining close.
I don't think corruption and rioting are particularly distressing for huge empires. They're more of a nuisance than a crippling factor. Not to say that the solution is in game balancing small wonders, but there ought to be a way to catch up in the Industrial Age -- instead of letting the winner of the game be the person who expanded the best in the Ancient Era.
You can play at emperor 5 times and get stomped into oblivion one of those times, and smoke the competition 4 of those times. The game has a really hard time remaining close.
I don't think corruption and rioting are particularly distressing for huge empires. They're more of a nuisance than a crippling factor. Not to say that the solution is in game balancing small wonders, but there ought to be a way to catch up in the Industrial Age -- instead of letting the winner of the game be the person who expanded the best in the Ancient Era.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
My idea to fix the 'first player to expand wins the game' scenario involves a couple fundamental changes.
1) The definition of winning. Currently you have to be the most powerful after 6000 years, or however long to one of the other victories. This means your civs zenith never occurs, or you lose. It leads to the over-competative syndrome all human players have and the one the AI did have in Civ 2. Basically the means justify the ends, so you do not think about the present, but eventually winning. Now winning involves how you changed history, not a specific score or goal.
1A) This means that often empires that expanded and were powerful in the Ancient Era will fall before the INdustrial era(explained below).
1B) As empires fall they break up or parts are conquered.
1C) Whenever your empire starts to break up, you get to choose where to stand.
1D) Your exploits and impact on hisotry while you were in charge of any civ is what adds up towards the end of the game.
1E) Winning is about changeing the world, either through culture, conquest, or a great achievement of the day.
2) Whenever your relative power compared to others is rising steadily and strongly you are entering an age of greater glory.
2A) Using an algorithim I have yet to define, your relative power will be the coordinates plotted as points of a bell curve. THis curve determines what kind of bonuses you start to recieve, when your golden age is, which is when you can build your UU(will be flexible system), and when you start to decline.
2B) The overall rate of rise determines whether your empire will be good but long(slower rate) or short but uber-powerful(longer rate)
2C) The rise of your civ increases happiness and maybe some special abilities.
2D) When your civ does fall, sections will start succeding from your empire and your units will actually get relatively worse then others of comparable types.
2E) You will get more points for having influenced history with your culture even though your empire will fall.
3) If you are declining, then at some point your people will have a great leader come along(maybe froma different culture though)
3A) decline is tracked along hte same bell curve as rise.
3B) Your rise back into existence may only bring you to normal.
3C) Expect some seperation, but mosly worse happiness and units and maybe civ penalties.
4) If you are conquered, you can wait out until a new civ from your lineage is created in hyper-fast mode.
4A) If you failed to leave anything behind to carry your name thorugh history, you are dead.
1) The definition of winning. Currently you have to be the most powerful after 6000 years, or however long to one of the other victories. This means your civs zenith never occurs, or you lose. It leads to the over-competative syndrome all human players have and the one the AI did have in Civ 2. Basically the means justify the ends, so you do not think about the present, but eventually winning. Now winning involves how you changed history, not a specific score or goal.
1A) This means that often empires that expanded and were powerful in the Ancient Era will fall before the INdustrial era(explained below).
1B) As empires fall they break up or parts are conquered.
1C) Whenever your empire starts to break up, you get to choose where to stand.
1D) Your exploits and impact on hisotry while you were in charge of any civ is what adds up towards the end of the game.
1E) Winning is about changeing the world, either through culture, conquest, or a great achievement of the day.
2) Whenever your relative power compared to others is rising steadily and strongly you are entering an age of greater glory.
2A) Using an algorithim I have yet to define, your relative power will be the coordinates plotted as points of a bell curve. THis curve determines what kind of bonuses you start to recieve, when your golden age is, which is when you can build your UU(will be flexible system), and when you start to decline.
2B) The overall rate of rise determines whether your empire will be good but long(slower rate) or short but uber-powerful(longer rate)
2C) The rise of your civ increases happiness and maybe some special abilities.
2D) When your civ does fall, sections will start succeding from your empire and your units will actually get relatively worse then others of comparable types.
2E) You will get more points for having influenced history with your culture even though your empire will fall.
3) If you are declining, then at some point your people will have a great leader come along(maybe froma different culture though)
3A) decline is tracked along hte same bell curve as rise.
3B) Your rise back into existence may only bring you to normal.
3C) Expect some seperation, but mosly worse happiness and units and maybe civ penalties.
4) If you are conquered, you can wait out until a new civ from your lineage is created in hyper-fast mode.
4A) If you failed to leave anything behind to carry your name thorugh history, you are dead.
CivEconomist
Chieftain
I agree with the idea that inspiration and unity can very well stem from loss or defeat, good point!
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think the key is to allow momentum as much as shifts in momentum. In Civ 3, you get even a bit of momentum in the ancient age, and you can run away with the game!
Similar threads
- Poll
