1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Have they killed the fun for warmongers

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by ThERat, Nov 17, 2005.

  1. grahamiam

    grahamiam In debt to Mr. Geisel

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,108
    Location:
    Pennsyltukey, USA
    This post is based on a recent incident in MM7 (Monarch) and observations by Akots at CDZ

    It seems that gaining techs via conquering in v1.09 is even more difficult and compounds the problem, imho. A dying civ should give up techs in a peace deal to save its existance, not hold on to them while it's country is conquered.
     
  2. Kylearan

    Kylearan compound eye

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,538
    Location:
    Bonn, Germany
    Hi,

    I second that. That would make warmongering a bit stronger, and more useful.

    To avoid exploiting this (make peace for tech, declare after 10, make peace for tech...aka Civ 3), maybe the AI should be more reluctant to give up techs during a second or third war.

    -Kylearan
     
  3. Kemal

    Kemal Tough Bureaucrat

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    555

    It has been said before in this thread (by Sirian, iirc), but please realize that you are playing civ4, not civ3 anymore.

    So far it seems a lot of people tend to see civ4 as some kind of civ3 mod and expect the game to behave much like its predecessor did, and see flaws in the game on points where old tactics no longer work or have an outcome as expected, such as pointy stick research and being able to fight no-casualty wars vs the AI.

    As said earlier, if you want these tactics to work, civ3 is still on your shelves, the AI is ready to take you on. But calling the game flawed because you can no longer simply extort your scientific research instead of having to manage it your own seems like a shorth-sighted observation to me.

    If anything, my experience with plenty of multihuman pbems has tought me that the way the civ4 AI behaves in this respect is much more humanlike than it was in civ3, in all cases I attacked a human, the result was a long term vendetta until the end of the game, not in a single case did an opponent accept an offer of giving me tribute to cease my attack (and I actually have made quite a few of them).
    Even worse, it usually resulted in that opponent giving away all his techs and resources to other players before he was killed, so it could be even worse than the AI handles this in civ4, it seems. ;)

    Just try to adapt and find other methods to be succesful, it most certainly is possible. The game simply isn't civ3 anymore, and expecting it to function like that (including all the known tactics/exploits) means you're starting on the wrong footing.
     
  4. grahamiam

    grahamiam In debt to Mr. Geisel

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    4,108
    Location:
    Pennsyltukey, USA
    bolding by me.

    Agreed. Just adding to the discussion in regards to gameplay effects on warmongers. Not being able to get techs for peace makes it more difficult. Finding a way around it is the fun part (and I've not done that yet). If it was the same as Civ3, I would have stopped playing already :) Looking at my post, it does seem that I was complaining, but it wasn't my intention.
     
  5. yatusk

    yatusk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Question: Does switching to Aggressive AI make the AI noticeably more willing to attack you? Do they attack each other more?
     
  6. al_thor

    al_thor Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    595
    Location:
    Wisconsin, USA
    @yatusk -
    I have tried a few games with Agg AI turned on, and yes, they really are more aggressive and will declare war at the drop of a hat.
     
  7. ZubieMaster

    ZubieMaster Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    102
    Well, again, the "it's not Civ III so get over it" comment isn't relevant, IMHO. I do not recall reading someone say here, "I wish Civ IV was just a Civ III mod". Obviously if Civ III was the end all, be all, we'd all still be playing it, but it had its flaws. Everyone wanted Civ IV to be different -- but different meaning improved, or better (as defined in our own little personal opinion of "more fun"). The question of this thread is as to warmongering, did they kill the fun? If the answer is "yes, but it was done to make the overall game better for everyone else, so just try something other than war for fun" -- that's a somewhat disappointing answer to the warmonger who doesn't find the tech race or building as much fun.
     
  8. R3dKnight

    R3dKnight Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2001
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Singapore
    i find warmongering approach doesn't differ much after a while. you simply stack your best attacking unit and then the MUST-have suicide siege units.

    I personally breathe a sigh of relief whenever i hit Flight tech, because I don't have to wait 5 turns in between conquests to march my catapults from behind the lines anymore. but the AI just can't react to threat fast enough. so what if they have 20 units in that town, my bombers will reduce them to below strength so much that all they're giving to me is free promotion for my attacking tanks. If they had taken a more active role like taking 3-4 Artillery to assault my offensive units or utilize air power properly, then I might be in more of a challenge but nope , all they did is bombard some border town resource tiles.
     
  9. microbe

    microbe Cascaded Mansion

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    4,596
    You couldn't have said better.

    In CIV3, all you need to do is to survive until infantry+artillery, and with an army or two bum! You are good to take on the deity AI. Yes it's boring, but you don't have to be the strongest civ to win, and seeing you tear the giant Persia into pieces turn after turn is just so satisfying. I miss so much about those OCCC games I played with Aggie and others.

    In CIV4, it seems to be able to conquer the world you'd have to be the most advanced, wealthy and productive civ ever. And it's so deterministic since once you are in that position you can win anyway.
     
  10. Kemal

    Kemal Tough Bureaucrat

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    555
    Didn't mean to single you out or accuse anyone of complaining too much with my post. Just wanted to point out that I feel a lot of gripes people have about the game are caused by the fact that they still play the game as if it was civ3 (for example by extorting techs), which it is not.

    Same goes for tech is king, imho. Tech was king in civ3 too (why else extort/techbroker etc?), except that you needed only certain specific ones after which you could profit from AI loopholes and flawed combat system.

    I personally also think it is way too early to judge that this very same can or cannot be done in civ4, we only know it can't be done in the same manner. After all, it took people a long time too in civ3 before all these (always war or not) deity games etc were brought to a good end, I can recall the early gotm deity attempts resulting in about 10 or so submitted vics.
     
  11. microbe

    microbe Cascaded Mansion

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    4,596
    Agreed. I believe CIV4 have as many holes as CIV3 but just not many have been found yet.

    But don't take people's "gripe" too seriously. Nobody really thinks CIV3 was better. Think positive. People just want a better game.
     
  12. Aeson

    Aeson orangesoda Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,686
    You can't rush with low tech units, but you can still fight with low tech units. And you don't need a tech lead to rush even, you just need to get to the proper techs before the opponent gets to the counters. That's certainly easier to do with a tech lead, but beelines can also work when you're behind overall in a tech race.
     
  13. strhopper

    strhopper Okie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    406
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    look at buddy christ
     
  14. ThERat

    ThERat Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11,378
    Location:
    City of one angel
    Good questions and it sparked a new flow of comments :goodjob:

    I don't know what to think of Civ4 yet. The new strategies it has, are exciting, but they are all about techs, specialists and builder stuff. I remember comments that SoD are a thing of the past and that new battle strategies are needed. That Civ4 is more about playing a strategic war rather than war of attrition and numbers. I have to politely disagree.

    What I found is that wounded units are much weaker than what the odds display. In other words it is absolutely essential to be able to wound the enemy and then kill them off. This in turn means bigger numbers of units to attack (which is essetially a SoD). Spreading out units is foolish since once wounded they will be easily killed by the enemy. As described above, slowly roll into the enemy territory, pillage and wait for your cat SoD to arrive to grind down defenses.

    It doesn't help at all that we can see every unit in a city. Whose idea was that? I find that a major flaw.

    As for tech brokering, Civ4 is far less versatile compared to Civ3 (don't come and tell me this is not Civ3, I am NOT dumb). We all know the flaws of Civ3, but fact is that it was possible to catch up as a smaller nation via good tactical play, using wars, resources and multiple trading (read goz 08 - silence is golden, which was the most enjoyable game I ever played).

    Civ4, doesn't allow tech versus resource trading, even when almost eliminated, the AI doesn't give up anything. This makes for less options in play. The game feels a little too much like 'monopoly', the bigger you are the fatter you get.

    I won my first monarch game in space by simply sitting back and building, no war ever and repetitive spacebar hitting. This is not what I call a fun game. And I can see, that just like Arathorn said, it's all about tech. I trid to get techs as monopoly to get better trading value, but it seemed the AI always researched exactly the same. But, even with tech parity, the space victory is easy to achieve and actually a yawn.
     
  15. microbe

    microbe Cascaded Mansion

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    4,596
    I feel a lot of the problems arise from the obvious fact that Firaxis tries to fix all the previous loopholes. For example, by disallowing "lumpsum vs gpt" trade, we lose the following exploit: trading gpt/resources for a tech and lure AI to declare. But my feeling is that this really takes away a lot of flexibility too. If old things are taken away, new things have to come up as alternative, and they are yet to be seen.

    Just an extreme example: Firaxis could definitely fix micromanagement by deciding all tiles were generating the same amount of f/p/c, but would you find the game more fun?

    If I have to choose between "not exploitable" and "flexible", I choose "flexible". Otherwise, humans will just become another AI with the artificial limitations put on them for what they can do (or less choice they can make).
     
  16. ThERat

    ThERat Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11,378
    Location:
    City of one angel
    very well said microbe, I completely agree.

    I am happy that there is still a lot of MM to be done, no less than before. Else, there is no fun factor or motivation to play. In fact with health and happiness there is more MM to be done IMO.
    If only the same could be said for warmongering or the trading game. I feel very disheartened whenever I use the diplo screen with all those options mainly in red.
     
  17. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    TN-USA
    I'm still horribly dissappointed. I hope that we are playing a beta and that major changes will come with a patch or at least an add-on. In a nutshell, the way I see it is the game forces major penalties for expansion and warmongering that really make the game not as fun. This is an intentional design that is deteremental to the way I want to play.

    All mechanical arguements on the design of the Civ games come down to 2 factors: gameplay vs. realism. 90% of the time the choice is gameplay, so the game will be "balanced" (so modern military will not defeat industrial so easily, for example). Yet this balance is chosen by the designers to favor certain tactics and combat systems to act as a crutch for the (still) terrible AI.
     
  18. handy900

    handy900 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,411
    Location:
    Tennessee, USA
    I have to agree with this. They took out or neutered fun units like armies & cats and eliminated tactics (exploits if you prefer) which were a load of fun and replaced them with a builder game. It may be a ton of fun if you are looking for a builder game, but it's not a fun war game. They took away from the human what the AI could not use effectively. My personal take anyway.

    I wonder why the AI was so bad at artillery but so lethal with bombers in C3 AW games. :hmm:
     
  19. Sark6354201

    Sark6354201 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    This is funny. The game is CIVILIZATION, not AGE OF EMPIRES or some RTS game. The military aspect of Civ3 was too strong and easy to wield against a ineffective AI. In Civ4 it is balanced. Go play a RTS game if you want all war. Nations cannot wage wars without penalties and consequences, and just as in history this is modelled better in Civ4.

    Furthermore, it is not realistic to conquer the world. It is even more unrealistic to think that you would be able to hold onto all of your territory forever. Two of the largest empires the world has seen, Great Britain and the Mongol Empire, have fallen apart. The USSR fell apart in less than a hundred years.

    Now granted, Civ is obviously not focused on realism. But there has to be some semblance of reality in the game, and being able to conquer the world with stacks of artillery that your enemies can't figure out how to use is not realistic, balanced, or fun.

    Personally, you war monger people probably just enjoyed seeing the world map turn one color:p
     
  20. ThERat

    ThERat Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11,378
    Location:
    City of one angel
    I miss armies, I thought it was one of the best concepts they invented for Civ3. If I remember the AI actually used them in Civ3 whereas in C3C they somehow forgot how to do that. But, IMO it is the wrong approach to take out the fun army just because the AI does not know how to handle it.

    Same with artillery. I hate it that I can't use them to bombard attacking units to have a chance at higher levels where you trail in techs. Promotions were introduced (nice concept by the way), but all too often you got no choice but to sacrifice precious high exp units to eliminate the enemy knowing you have no chance of survival, but to merely grind them down. There is no help via artillery. This is a very big minus for me.

    Another good example would be Arathorns LOTR17 Duelling Deity. Is this game now fun? No, since India is too far ahead and there is simply no way in Civ4 to catch up or find a way to exploit some weakness with human wit. The wit was castrated since some people thought of it as exploits.
    Heck, who cares about that if it is fun. On the other hand instead of just eliminating the human, I don't know what this AI is doing.
     

Share This Page