Have they killed the fun for warmongers

[microbe]

Folks,

I really hope that people (Sirian, Sullla, and other beta testers) don't take criticism personally. I know it's very hard to do, as you put a lot of time in it and consider it your baby that nobody else could touch. I have a lot of respect for you. But on the other hand, if you are too defensive of your work, it's hard for you to get valuable feedback.

I believe that a game like CIV4 should be 1) balanced and 2) accomodating. Which means that different players with different styles will all hopefully enjoy the game. No strategies should be dominating.

What it means for beta testers is that 1) testers are representative of different playing styles (accomodating) and 2) all testers have the same weight on their opinions (balanced).

My current impression is that although the game tried to solve many balancing issues, it has brought its own. Some play styles are favored more than others.

At last, CIV3 has proved that a flexible game could sparkle many new ways of playing the game. There is no lack of innovations among the CIV community. Let's not force everybody to adopt the same mindset, and not get upset if people choose to play it in a different way than the original designer envisioned. We know that in CIV3, many things were discovered by fans which weren't known to the developers, and in many cases it was not the deveopers who knew better. I believe same thing will also happen in CIV4. So let's not let pride get into the way of enjoying, exploring, and improving the game.

 

[handy900]

Breunor - thank you for an excellent post that makes several good observations.

But now, there are new tactics and new techniques to learn on AW. Yes, its harder, but it should be more fun.

I am hoping this is true. Early on my impression is that AW is more tedious and less fun. But many here are of the opposite opinion.

As far as warmongering goes, isn't it more fun that the somewhat easy tactics don't work any more?

This is a good question, and of course the answer will vary depending on what you enjoy. When I played AWD on C3, the fun was the early game razor edge where you can't tell if you will survive from one turn to the next. MM was critical because each shield counted. Once the game tipped to me I sometimes did not finish it. The end game was less fun than "razor time" There was less of a thrill in combat when vicotory was secure. Others would say that early game MM and the razor edge is the most boring thing in the world. Of course that would be correct - for them.

I have not yet found the adrenaline rush razor edge in C4 yet. It may be there, but I don't see it because I think they took pains to remove it as your post suggests. That is not right or wrong, it is just the way it is.

 

[neriana]

At last, CIV3 has proved that a flexible game could sparkle many new ways of playing the game. There is no lack of innovations among the CIV community. Let's not force everybody to adopt the same mindset, and not get upset if people choose to play it in a different way than the original designer envisioned. We know that in CIV3, many things were discovered by fans which weren't known to the developers, and in many cases it was not the deveopers who knew better. I believe same thing will also happen in CIV4. So let's not let pride get into the way of enjoying, exploring, and improving the game.

But Civ 3 didn't allow for that much flexibility. You HAD to have a major settler rush for a long time. Every bit of land was taken after the first few centuries, and resources were scarce enough that you had to landgrab. The AI couldn't deal with armies, didn't defend its cities properly, was willing to give the human peace very quickly -- in fact, I'd say warmongering in Civ 3 was broken, because it was so very overpowered and exploitative. On high levels, it was really the only strategy that worked.

In Civ 4, there are things other than warmongering that work, and warmongering has become an actual challenge. It is still a viable route, it's just not a cakewalk any longer, nor is it superior to other strategies.

 

[microbe]

But Civ 3 didn't allow for that much flexibility. You HAD to have a major settler rush for a long time. Every bit of land was taken after the first few centuries, and resources were scarce enough that you had to landgrab.

It's not true. Have you played 5CC or OCC games?

Don't change this into a "which is a better game, CIV3 or CIV4" topic. I just wanted to point out that 1) flexibility sometimes is more important than fixing exploits to some people, and 2) there will always be exploits that the original designers didn't think of. Lessons from CIV3 should be carried over, not abandoned, even if it was a worse game.

In Civ 4, there are things other than warmongering that work, and warmongering has become an actual challenge. It is still a viable route, it's just not a cakewalk any longer, nor is it superior to other strategies.

We'll have to see. I want to see some game reports that win deity without too much military to prove this claim. In CIV3 this was possible.

 

[Aeson]

I guess amongst the beta's there were no hardcore warmongers.

The names of the beta participants have been posted. No guessing necessary. While SG players may not have been that well represented (I know a couple SG players at least were involved) that certainly is not the only place "hardcore" warmongers played Civ III games. In most high level GOTM and HOF games for instance, conquering out to the Domination limit was almost a given regardless of the difficulty level in every game. As I said in my first response, Civ III warmongering wasn't at all about "if", just "how fast". Would it still be over in the ancient era, or sometime in the middle ages? That's because there wasn't a difficulty level that gave a good challenge to an adept warmonger (without self-imposed restrictions). If the game was winnable, it was a cakewalk (though a hugely micro intensive one), if it wasn't... no chance.

Sid did offer a "challenge" militarily, but it wasn't really a fun challenge. The bonuses the AI got were so ridiculous, that to realistically have a shot at Conquest/Domination the player had to have a favorable map, get lucky and not have an AI neighbor too close or declare war early, let the AI implode on unit support costs to destroy their tech rate, and/or (usualy and) use "uncounterable" military methods such as Armies and bombardment units. If the AI imploded enough to give the player time, the game was over because even with 10x the units, the AI couldn't kill anything with anywhere near even technology. If they AI didn't implode, there was no way to keep up in the tech race. It was more like rolling dice than playing a strategy game.

Leading to this point...

As far as warmongering goes, isn't it more fun that the somewhat easy tactics don't work any more? If its harder to win at AW (which I did occasionally), then play on a lower level. I used to AW on emperor, I will now probably settle it on one or two levels lower. But now, there are new tactics and new techniques to learn on AW. Yes, its harder, but it should be more fun.

Civ III didn't have a really challenging difficulty level for a warmonger. The best it could put up was the Sid lottery with a huge gap down to Deity. Warmongers (without self-imposed restrictions) could play "up" a couple difficulty levels from those who were more peaceful. The problem was for the players who could play on Deity peacefully for a good challenge, as there was no place to go for a good war challenge except for self-imposed restrictions.

Now Deity offers a good challenge on standard settings, at least for me. I can play peaceful, warmonger, or somewhere inbetween, and expect a nailbiter. And those who want an easier or more relaxed setting, there are plenty of other difficulty levels (and maps) that give a good range of challenges.

 

[Aeson]

I have not yet found the adrenaline rush razor edge in C4 yet. It may be there, but I don't see it because I think they took pains to remove it as your post suggests. That is not right or wrong, it is just the way it is.

This "razor edge" is going to be highly personal. Difficulty level can get a player close, but there are gaps. To get closer, you'll have to narrow the settings and perhaps self-imposed restrictions to fit how narrow you want the window to be. No different than in Civ III, right? Certainly AW was a self-imposed restriction in Civ III. Just AW didn't cut it though, as a godly start with few neighbors was much easier than a poor start with lots of neighbors, even on the same difficulty level.

Unless you can play AW on Deity land maps in CIV and win easily, or can't beat Settler at all, that edge should still be there. You'll just have to find it (difficulty level, map types, settings, and self imposed-restrictions).

 

[handy900]

This "razor edge" is going to be highly personal.

Yes I agree.

No different than in Civ III, right?

It is early, but I think it is a little different. C4 limits expansion and places emphasis on building stuff over making war. I'm not much of a builder, so the game feels slower and more tedious than C3. Maybe this will change as I play more.

Unless you can play AW on Deity land maps in CIV and win easily, or can't beat Settler at all, that edge should still be there. You'll just have to find it (difficulty level, map types, settings, and self imposed-restrictions).

I am looking. So far I have I've played a duel map [pretty fun] and Pangaea [C4 restricts sea crossings so you can't transport many troops over the sea for a while]. So yes there is something for everyone. As to the general question of: did they take some of the fun out of war? The answer is yes for me, but apparently not for many others. But fun is relative, and they left enough for me to keep playing for a while.

in fact, I'd say warmongering in Civ 3 was broken, because it was so very overpowered and exploitative.

Yeah... but it was [and is] a lot of fun for the Grumpy Old Men of C3 Always War.

 

[Aeson]

It is early, but I think it is a little different. C4 limits expansion and places emphasis on building stuff over making war. I'm not much of a builder, so the game feels slower and more tedious than C3. Maybe this will change as I play more.

By "no different" I was refering to the process of finding the "razor edge" where a game's result will hang in the balance. Whether or not a given player will enjoy it is another (entirely personal) issue.

 

[Sirian]

I really hope that people (Sirian, Sullla, and other beta testers) don't take criticism personally. I know it's very hard to do, as you put a lot of time in it and consider it your baby that nobody else could touch. I have a lot of respect for you. But on the other hand, if you are too defensive of your work, it's hard for you to get valuable feedback.

Are criticisms based on incorrect information fair criticisms? If you haven't had time to learn the game rules yet, and more importantly, how the various rules intersect and overlap, then how can you offer up a fair critique?


I've been the harshest critic of Soren's AI. It's the thing that draws him to me. However, my criticism is a complete package: I also analyze what I think his AI gets right. Often that is more important for building toward better performance.

For criticism to be effective, it must be balanced; it must be fair. It must be honest, well considered, and... in the end, it must be correct, not trumped by considerations not taken in to account.

Criticism, to be effective, must itself be analyzed and criticized. Statistics will bring clarity and stability to the issues. Leaping to conclusions on data samples that are too small to support the claims is a dangerous thing to be doing, for a developer.

I'm interested in criticism, but not all criticism is constructive by definition. If you want to be heard, then strive to be fair in your remarks.

Making observations about gameplay instances is fair, but not enough time has passed, not enough data samples collected (by any given player, or by the community on the whole) to pass a fair judgement on the subtle points.


- Sirian

 

[microbe]

... in the end, it must be correct, not trumped by considerations not taken in to account.

This is the attitude I don't agree with. You essentially are blocking the voices from the average players. Firixas has been working hard to improve the experience for casual players, why not take their feedback in the same way?

I don't ask you to accept my criticism, which I don't/can't guarantee to be correct or even fair (which, is a rather subjective term), as I have neither the time nor interest in becoming a professional in this area, and I'd appreciate if people take their time to correct anything I've said that could be incomplete or wrong. All I hope is to not take it personally or emotionally (e.g., as an insult to your work). That's all.

 

[Sirian]

By "no different" I was refering to the process of finding the "razor edge" where a game's result will hang in the balance. Whether or not a given player will enjoy it is another (entirely personal) issue.

There are also different degrees of sharpness to the edge. Some will be thrilled to lose one game in ten, and consider that challenging. For some, it will be one in five. One in twenty. One in three.

Sometimes players play to relax and don't really want to lose, so much as just to have to think a bit to be successful. Sometimes they want to escape and not think much at all.

The options are there. No civ game has had anywhere near this number of options before, so it will take some time for people to sort out what suits them. (That's the one down side of having extra options -- it can take longer to find your niche, if only some of the options please you.)


- Sirian

 

[Sirian]

This is the attitude I don't agree with. You essentially are blocking the voices from the average players.

This has nothing to do with above or below "average", or with who is or isn't part of some "elite group". I've tried to explain but you are reinterpreting my remarks. If my remarks are not coming across as intended, then I have to stop before I cause trouble.

Statements and exchanges like this will force me out of the thread. I'm sorry, but I cannot continue an exchange of this nature.


- Sirian

 

[microbe]

This has nothing to do with above or below "average", or with who is or isn't part of some "elite group". I've tried to explain but you are reinterpreting my remarks. If my remarks are not coming across as intended, then I have to stop before I cause trouble.

Then please do not reinterpret others remarks either.

By "average" I do not mean anything wrt elite or closed cycles, but that average players do not have the time, patience, interest or skills to do whatever you claim you have done. Yet they have the right to express their impressions and opinions even if you think you know better than them.

It's rather absurd to say "you need to spend one week writing a formal AI report for us to take your feedback seriously, and you'd better to be correct or we'll hunt you down". Just for the record, I'm a bit exaggrating here to emphasize a point.

Statements and exchanges like this will force me out of the thread. I'm sorry, but I cannot continue an exchange of this nature.

Nobody should be forced in or out of any discussion. It's their choice.

 

[Smidlee]

As a wargamer I sure have enjoyed Civ 4 so far. Sure it not like Civ3 conquest which I really liked but I would have been very upset spending $50 for a rehash version of Civ3. Civ4 stand on it own.

 

[Aeson]

I think all criticism that is properly qualified is valid and useful, regardless of whether the conclusions are correct or not. The key is that qualification.

 

[Astax]

Weeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh I cant make a settler factory Weeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhh

 

[Dtry]

I do not think CIV has killed the fun for warmongers, so much as they have forced warmongers to rethink how you execute your war.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I do not think CIV has killed the fun for warmongers, so much as they have forced warmongers to rethink how you execute your war.

I'd like to think that since the game has already been out for a while that we understand mostly how the game works. There are many artificial limitations put on warmongers and other assorted gameplay fixes that are needed.

 

[karadoc]

I reckon that the spies in Civ4 are alright. Plant them all around enemy territory to see what the enemy is up to. I think the spy system is actually an improvement.

As for great military leaders, I'm not sure that there is much of a place for them in Civ4. Since all units gain XP and promotions, building up one unit could be thought of as a military leader. Sure, you don't get the armies of Civ3; but is that so bad? I feel like armies like that would be a bit out of place in Civ4 anyway. There are balance issues to consider as well.

 

[ThERat]

wow, I go bed and come back to see so many more interesting posts and points being made. That's good.
For the record, Astax, why did you quote me, I don't think I ever mde that statement.

As for Civ3 and flexibility. I totally agree with microbe here, the strategy was flexible. It was not only settler spamming (those extreme styles are mainly found in GOTM and maybe HoF to get a high score and early finish). In fact, I did not enjoy such a game much. But, I did try OCC and 5CC, AW and even some other variants. They will all pose very different challenges and can be razor exciting from start to almost the end.
I am a warmonger, however, I also played Sid (when I felt masochistic) and that posed a very different way of play. Settler spam and military dominance in Sid? No way I would say. There, clever tactics were essential. Yes, you could call exploits, but there were things such as tech brokerink, using essential resources to gain some tech. Spies as a very powerful tool. Staying under the radar. If someone tells me in Civ3 there was only 1 way to win, I have to disagree.

I agree with handy and the excitment of AW games. AW are fun due to the overwhelming AI opposition. If you can survive those and play wisely to overcome the odds, it's very rewarding and fun. Anyone who has followed the AW games knows how exciting this was. Trying to beat a stack of 10 units coming your way when you have only 2-3 to defend. This is fun.

Now, quite a few of those poeple who enjoyed such challenges, find that this is somehow missing in Civ4. Whether it is purposely designed to be that way (I still think the AI is desgined to be passive for most of the game), does not matter to us. I am talking about a personally perceived feeling. Nobody can argue about that.
And, of course, Sirian, we will continue to play and find ways to get the 'adrenaline'-factor out of that. But, you must accept that often criticism stems from preceived feelings rather than deep analytical observations. That's why, in my initial post. I tried to list issues why I might get those feelings. So, I attempted to be fact-driven. Well, of course not being involved in hard-code or beta, there is no way i can ever win any argument this way. But you must accept, that we do have our opinions about a game.
I'd say, as a developer it is hard to swallow criticism, but fanboy praise wouldn't help to improve a game at all.

In one post, I brought up specific observations about the AI. It is my intent to play AW to figure out how the AI works. And, it might be much better than Civ3, but I have yet to play enough to make a judgment. I noted, that it is passive and prefers to defend. This takes away some thrill.