Get rid of SODs

[Trias]

can't think of 1 strategy where expansion was not crucial. civ4 is the same as all the civs before. if you don't expand you lose.

Think some more then. Deity OCC is winnable (and obviously requires no expansion). See www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/bts_occ.php

Also high-level cultural victory only requires 6 cities (om standard map sizes). See http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/culture_victory.php. This is also winnable on Deity.

Most other strats will require some amount expansion, but never the obscene amount in civ2 (or to less degree civ3) (where you basically REXed as fast as you could until you didn't have anywhere to expand to.)

 

[Argetnyx]

You do shout a lot for someone who has next to none experience with civilization titles other than your precious, III. Gameplay wise civ4 is much more sophisticated than any of its predecessors, which featured very 1-dimensional gameplay with a single dominant strategy: expand, expand, expand and then expand some more.

Sophisticated is different than accurate. There are many more ways to win in Civ3 than just "expand", it does help though...Have you ever looked at any period in history? The only strategy for a country is to expand, expand, expand, and expand some more. Sorry for shouting, I was having a bad day...

 

[r_rolo1]

This strategy:

expand, expand, expand, and expand some more

has a very high prob ( just not to say 100 % ) of getting your country/empire in partial or total breakdown in RL. Neither Civ III or IV reflect that accurately, but civ III is further away of that small fact of human life.

 

[Argetnyx]

Name one country that, through it's entire history, did not try to expand. Go on, just try it. It is very accurate that expanding is the main goal.

 

[r_rolo1]

San Marino.

And why did this passed from "strategy " to "goal" ? I was simply discussing the merit of your proposed strategy in RL. Just because a lot of countries want to get bigger, it does not mean that getting bigger is a good strategy......

 

[Argetnyx]

Hmm, expanding is the strategy, being larger is the goal...

Fine, other than the small countries that are locked in by much larger countries. Did getting bigger help the United States? Britain? How about Russia? France? China? Prussia and Germany? All of the current world powers got to their position not by watching the world pass by, but by expanding their borders and defeating enemies.

 

[r_rolo1]

First, San marino did not born locked down by a bigger country

And all of the countries that you quoted so far ( well, some would describe them more like empires, and empires without expansion is like water without oxygen atoms ), except the United States so far, all suffered so far massive territorial breakdowns because of trying to get bigger at least once in their history. Expansion only helps a empire if the net gain of power of the governative center vs the competition by getting more land is positive, and historical evidence is strongly against saying that this is automatically true. From corruption, recalcitrant natives, ambitious governors or neighbours getting pissed enough, all goes against this.....

 

[Argetnyx]

That's called anarchy, and it is represented in the game every time you change government types. Russia is still the largest country in the world, the only British territory that was not freed by the British was America.

 

[r_rolo1]

I don't think that you are understanding my point....

A RL example: would the USA get stronger or weaker by ocupying Mexico now? Would the fact that you would need to get probably Vietman or WW II troop numbers there to maintain the peace and the more than likely creation of a Mexican Viceroy-style governor ( pretty much like the US did with Japan post-WW II ) compensate having the the extra land and some more millions of subordinates to washington? To say the truth I find that doubtful.....

Look, ,I am not talking of civ III corruption or civ IV maintenance, that suffer both of the same issue, that is having a ceiling per city. I'm not talking of anarchy, that only happens empire wide in Civ III and Civ IV ( except for espoinage or events related stuff in BtS ). I'm saying that in RL people resent far-away governements ( especially if they are not ethnically part of the governement ) and that bigger empires mean always more governative levels and that until now in the human history the cost of the beaurocracy needed to manage a big empire ( even in peace ) grows faster in cost than the ammount of wealth that you can take of yet another anexed territory. That neither civ III or IV reflect, but , like i said before, Civ III reflects that reality in a poorer fashion than Civ IV

On and the diference between "freeing" a area of you empire and being kicked out is basically meaningless in this terms ( and to say the truth, it is hard to discern between the two. it was england that freed the US after thinking that trying to maintain the US as a colony was unprofitable due to rebel activity or was the US that kicked the English out? It was France that liberated Algeria ( they even made a referend on that ) or were the Algerian that drove the French out? .... I knew a person that said that the diference between a country freeing a colony and a country losing a colony to rebels was the ratio between the speed of the fleeing governors vs the speed of the rebels ). If you thinked that it was profitable to maintain a area as a full blown part of your empire, you would not think on freeing it in the first place anyway.....

 

[Argetnyx]

Civ4 focuses mostly on modern times. Civ3 tries to encompass the entire history as much as possible. Wht you are saying about the occupation of Mexico is true, in current terms. But when the United States and Mexico went to war over Texas, resulting in gaining New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, occupying Mexico would not be seen as all that bad.

England did not 'free' the United States, it was lost to the rebelling colonists. After this disturbing loss, Britain did not care to lose another colony, so it gave many of them independence.

 

[r_rolo1]

Civ4 focuses mostly on modern times. Civ3 tries to encompass the entire history as much as possible. Wht you are saying about the occupation of Mexico is true, in current terms. But when the United States and Mexico went to war over Texas, resulting in gaining New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, occupying Mexico would not be seen as all that bad.

England did not 'free' the United States, it was lost to the rebelling colonists. After this disturbing loss, Britain did not care to lose another colony, so it gave many of them independence.

Sorry, but I have to disagree.... England could still be today "fighting" against the US rebels in spite of have nil control of the area. They had to admit defeat, or the US independence war would still be running, even if only on paper, like the Netherlands-Scilly islands war, that took more than 300 years because no one remembered to make a peace deal until the 1980ihs And, to be honest, England never gave full independence to any of the post-US "freed" colonies: they just said "Take care of your own business as long as your king/queen is the same as ours... oh, and bring some troops when we call for your help "

I agree that some people in the US would not shun the possibility of annexing Mexico ( oh, and btw, the US didn't annexed texas and such as the result of the war with Mexico..... The US intervened in favor of the Republic of Texas against Mexico after the Republic of Texas acepted being part of the US The other states you quoted were taken out of Texas , not of Mexico ). But that is not the point. The point is that conquering and annexing Mexico would make the US stronger or weaker than it is now. I am all but convinced that it would make it weaker..... but that is just my opinion. Anyway, I think it is clear than it would not be a automatic gain of strenght.

 

[Argetnyx]

Back then, stronger. Now, weaker because of the diplomatic situation. Recently, diplomacy is like the trenches in WWI. The defence is much stronger than the attack and global conflicts reach a standstill.

 

[r_rolo1]

Not even back then was automatic ( in fact I would say that in the ol'days it was even worse, because of the dificulty of making a order being obeyed if you were too far away )..... Did the Roman empire got stronger by anexing Dacia? Did the Persian empire got stronger after taking Thebes and Athens in the Thermophilae aftermath ( until Salamina and Platea twisted the thing it the other direction ) ? Macedonia got stronger with taking land until the Indus? The Carolingian Empire got stronger by expanding into Panonia area? The Eastern Roman Empire got stronger by conquering the Vandals, the Ostrogoths and the south of the Visigoths kingdom?

 

[Argetnyx]

The Roman empire got stronger when it took over Carthage, did it not? And how about Iberia? Greece? Annatolia? Egypt? Gaul? Every empire has it's time, and it's eventual fall.

 

[r_rolo1]

So, your point is that expanding is good sometimes.....

But I never said otherwise

I just said , and will continue saying , that expansion is only good until a certain point, and any further expansion above that point normally will lead to atleast a forced downsizing of the governement structure later, or even a complete breakdown, for a large number of independent reasons. That is what happens in RL ( otherwise there would be a worldwide real empire now ) and that is exactly why the "expand, expand and expand some more" strategy is not fail-proof as you said.

This, unfortunately does not happen in any of the civilization games ( except in the Civ IV "revolution" related nods ). Too bad....

 

[rysmiel]

can't think of 1 strategy where expansion was not crucial. civ4 is the same as all the civs before. if you don't expand you lose.

Unless you're playing one-city challenge...

I do think that Civ needs to be balanced better such that half a dozen cities of size 6 support as strong or stronger a civilisation that thirty cities of size 1 or 2.

as for SoD's, i thought about unorganized stacks and organized stacks. in an unorganized stack, the attack picks the defender at random, as opposed to an organized stack. maybe a stack can become organized if united under a general or something like that.

That is a rather good idea; effectively turning stacks into armies, yes ?

 

[rysmiel]

Most other strats will require some amount expansion, but never the obscene amount in civ2 (or to less degree civ3) (where you basically REXed as fast as you could until you didn't have anywhere to expand to.)

OCC is winnable in Civ 2 as well, fwiw. But then, in Civ 2 wonder benefits are cumulative rather than all being based on the city's base numbers, so whatever strategy you are going for, you really need to build most of your wonders in one city to get maximal use from them; you can have a hundred-city empire and that one city still provides a notable fraction of the science and finance.

 

[rysmiel]

I don't think that you are understanding my point....

Your point appears to be that you care about realism more than gameplay. I understand this point, I just do not accept it.

Look, ,I am not talking of civ III corruption or civ IV maintenance, that suffer both of the same issue, that is having a ceiling per city.

The think about the Civ III corruption model is that, once you get past a certain point, every new city you build or take is essentially useless; it will have minimal production and input forever. So it does act in practise to limit the size of an empire unless you basically work around it with exploits; that those exploits exist in the Civ III implementation is not a flaw in the model itself.

I'm not talking of anarchy, that only happens empire wide in Civ III and Civ IV ( except for espoinage or events related stuff in BtS ).

You do not count Civ III civil disorder on a ctiy-by-city level here ?

 

[Argetnyx]

This, unfortunately does not happen in any of the civilization games

Oh, yes it does. In Civ3, as I've already explained, when you and your enemies get advanced enough, it is useless to try to expand because of the diplomatic and military consequences.

The think about the Civ III corruption model is that, once you get past a certain point, every new city you build or take is essentially useless; it will have minimal production and input forever. So it does act in practise to limit the size of an empire unless you basically work around it with exploits; that those exploits exist in the Civ III implementation is not a flaw in the model itself.

Thank you, nobody seems to realize this.

You do not count Civ III civil disorder on a ctiy-by-city level here ?

I don't think he's played Civ3 (no offense if you have, r_rolo1). Civil disorder has been toned down way too much in civ4 anyway...

 

[r_rolo1]

I definitely played a lot more civ III than most of the civ IV people ( I still have it installed btw ), and with no offense to you, Argetnyx, I probably played more time Civ III than you. And, sorry, I definitely forgot the anarchy form unhappiness in civ III.

About the points you made about the corruption model: in fact, after a while, the cities you take or get will not produce anything useful ( expect if you hack things around like the planting/chopping cicles or $rush ). But they are still yours, they still add to the treasury, they still have ability of hiring specialists, and OFC they will not revolt against you for your governement taking 235346345 years to do a market in the city ( neither civ IV ones do, but my point isn't that ). So, after a while, there is a definite, if small, positive return for every extra city you have.... it is never 0 or negative, like in RL

@rysmiel

This all discussion between me and Argetnyx is mainly about RL. It started with post #82 with Argetnyx calling history and RL to the discussion in support of a affirmation from which I disagree ( and said why in the subsequent posts ). If we want to discuss mecahnics.... well, IMHO conquering the world should be hard, people should rebel against tyranical or foreign governements , governors should be corrupt, greedy and sometimes ambitious enough to try to be the Sultan instead of the Sultan. It would definitely make the game more interesting than the "get more prod bases, make more stuff, kill more stuff, win" aproach so common this days in the "strategy" games . Remember that the box of both civ III and IV says that the objective of the game is to make a civilization that stands the test of time, not to make a civilization capable of zerging the rest.....