I just want CIV 5 to be a joyful game

[hclass]

Didn't feel that great to me. Limited rail movement allows for some fun tactics that'd be impossible with it being unlimited (like attacking the soft belly of your enemy anti-Maginot line style).

I remember...

Once upon a time, when there was a feature called indefinite movement railroad, there was a man, hclass who has developed a tactic to make fully use of it.
He manage to use that tactic at the right time and wipe an opponent (quite a strong one) more than 7 cities (some real big and strongly guarded) in 1 turn through that tactic...

and now, this kind of fantacy will never occur again...

hclass is a legacy... you all should miss him.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Once upon a time, when there was a feature called indefinite movement railroad, there was a man, hclass who has developed a tactic to make fully use of it.
He manage to use that tactic at the right time and wipe an opponent (quite a strong one) more than 7 cities (some real big and strongly guarded) in 1 turn through that tactic...

Civ2, right? Infinite movement in enemy territory would be broken if the AI actually understood how to use it. Civ2's railroads didn't break the game because the AI was kinda ********.

Also, Civ2 cities, with their City Walls and one-shot stack destroying would be much more hard to conquer if the AI would have any sense. In fact, conquering them would be perhaps harder then in Civ4.

(I'm surprised you don't hold the one-shot stack destroyal against Civ2 more, it was rather lame).

 

[hclass]

I absolutely have no problem with it as an option - though at some point options need to be limited simply in order to have a workable options screen, so not everything can be an easily accessible option.

That is why I am here to shout out to Firaxis, go... go... give up other things, give room to "Reveal map" option.

frankly a warmonger style has so much more reward than any other style already that I do not see how it needs to further encouraged.

How come I felt exactly opposite.
(Don't guess, I am almost all time winner in CIV game...)

I personally do think that if you depict something as being roughly in a specific era than you should not too obviously depart from that. Much as I wouldn't want airplanes in an ancient era setting. If you wish to break that I think that the fact that they allow you to use worldbuilder ingame to change plots to whatever you like gives you the option in Civ4. As for Civ5: they did state that a worldbuilder would be available outside the game - so we'll have to see how it works out. As of now in Civ4 it is very much an option and only one (actually two - since it asks you if you really want it) click(s) away from the game.

Don't force me to break my principle, please.
It certain will make me feel like I am cheaper than a btch...

switching and transferring production has little to do with getting all wonders - since you pretty much only want to transfer production at a point where you lost the race for one. I disagree that its necessary to be able to get all wonders -
...
- but I don't think that is necessary.

AH!
You are attempting to provoke me!
You must have never played a all-wonders-race before like I did.

Go ask someone who did and why it is not like what you have said:

since you pretty much only want to transfer production at a point where you lost the race for one

AH!AH!
Firaxis, you mtfk give me back my wonder race...

..
..
..
(I am kidding, no real emotional here )

Civ2, right? Infinite movement in enemy territory would be broken if the AI actually understood how to use it. Civ2's railroads didn't break the game because the AI was kinda ********.

Also, Civ2 cities, with their City Walls and one-shot stack destroying would be much more hard to conquer if the AI would have any sense. In fact, conquering them would be perhaps harder then in Civ4.

Uh..uh ..uh...
NO, NO, NO! It is in Civ3, there is no indefinite movement in enemy territory.

(Ah, I am sorry Ori, please help me to merge this one with the previous, it is an accident)

 

[Lone Wolf]

NO, NO, NO! It is in Civ3, there is no indefinite movement in enemy territory.

Then these 7 cities must've been really nearly placed and the same would be possible in Civ4, if not for the culture mechanics.

 

[hclass]

Then these 7 cities must've been really nearly placed and the same would be possible in Civ4, if not for the culture mechanics.

Not really! (but not too far way between one another)

Tips:
1. The 8 or 9 cities (propbably more) are all linked by either a road or rail.
2. I have a gigantic group of workers besides army.

(I believe you too a legacy... the tips is for others though.)

 

[Lone Wolf]

1. The 8 or 9 cities (propbably more) are all linked by either a road or rail.
2. I have a gigantic group of workers besides army.

If they are already linked by a rail, then why you would need workers?

Point being, limitations can be reverted by throwing them at the AI. So the claim that a limitation always takes strategies away is wrong. In chess, giving all pieces a Knight-like ability to jump would take away some interesting strategies.

 

[hclass]

If they are already linked by a rail, then why you would need workers?

Workers are for those link with road (not rail). Didn't I say rail or road?

Point being, limitations can be reverted by throwing them at the AI. So the claim that a limitation always takes strategies away is wrong.

The reverse is also wrong.
I mean: Putting in a limitation does not always make it more strategic.

But one thing I am sure will be always a right claim, that goes:
If a limitation is there to handicap human player simply because it is hard to code AI to do the same (as human), the act of doing so is "lazy" and irresponsible.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Workers are for those link with road (not rail). Didn't I say rail or road?

You could do that in Civ4, too, if not for culture. At most, it'd take one turn more - hardly a really significant change.

If a limitation is there to handicap human player simply because it is hard to code AI to do the same (as human), the act of doing so is "lazy" and irresponsible.

I agree with that. At least, adding worse mechanics because the AI wouldn't understand a better one is a game flaw.

I mean: Putting in a limitation does not always make it more strategic.

Of course, but from your earlier posts, you give me the impression that for you, less limitations is automatically good, with all that wanting to be a superman talk.

 

[Shurdus]

Workers are for those link with road (not rail). Didn't I say rail or road?


The reverse is also wrong.
I mean: Putting in a limitation does not always make it more strategic.

But one thing I am sure will be always a right claim, that goes:
If a limitation is there to handicap human player simply because it is hard to code AI to do the same (as human), the act of doing so is "lazy" and irresponsible.

Every game has limitations, although they are more commonly referred to as rules. That being said, you imply now that the player is in some cases restricted just because of the limitations in the AI. So if an AI would fail to perform action X as well as a human could, the human would be restricted to perform action X to th point where the player can no longer do it better than the AI.

That would indeed be quite lame. Then again there are so many examples of the player outplaying the AI all over these boards that I doubt the rules are implemented anywhere for the purpose of restricting the player. The one example I can come up with is the AI in Civ IV paying less for maintenance than a human player would, so the AI can settle faster and build more units than a player could. This is indeed restricting the player more than the AI is restricted, but in my eyes it is forgiven because this very mechanic makes the game such that the game makes for more diversity. You can now face a monster AI with a huge army and twice the amount of cities I have, or in some games you can be the monster player. Restrict the AI enough and it will never be that impressive since it can not have more cities and have a larger army than you have early in the game.

Having the AI act like a human would would be a mission doomed to fail when done too properly, because during the course of a Civ gaming career the tactics and insights that one has may change, while an AI will abide by the same rules always. In order to change that you will need a random factor, but then you run the risk of the AI performing in ways no human ever would. The details however are not important, what I am saying is that the AI will not perform like a human would because one cannot easely quantify the processes that occur in ones brain.

Trying to code an AI that can challenge you would therefore be the economicaly sane thing to do, I doubt current science is advanced enough to program an AI that truly plays like a human would. Even if they could, there are plenty of examples of what high level players do consider bad playing as well, and then an AI that plays like a apoor human is no fun either.

 

[hclass]

You could do that in Civ4, too, if not for culture. At most, it'd take one turn more - hardly a really significant change.

Don't blah!
I dare not say I am the best warmonger, well I know enough in CIV warfare, don't try to talk me out on this.
They never be the same any more. It is not that fun in CIV4, not at least in warfare. Now I believe we are talking on something very differently, because in CIV3 there is also calture. So culture is not the factor that makes things different, it is the limitation on movement.

Of course, but from your earlier posts, you give me the impression that for you, less limitations is automatically good, with all that wanting to be a superman talk.

Superman is a simple way to express how amplified event make one feel different.
It is not regarding how fast the amplified event will taka place" nor is it regarding "how automatically good quality can be achieve" that I want to stress through that analog.
You may go through again my Superman story, see at which part have I said Superman movie is overall good. (attract all ages is the only things I have commented on Superman, do you understand what that really mean?)

I believe, many (probably including you) know exactly what I want to say through an analog using Superman... You simply denied that spontaneously. I understand it is human nature to resist (as the immediate reaction) to something which is very different with what you have always perceive.

My earlier impression to you is, you could be different, but now I know you are no other than the others... sigh!

 

[Lone Wolf]

because in CIV3 there is also calture. So culture is not the factor that makes things different, it is the limitation on movement.

Civ4 model of culture makes captured cities completely surrounded by culture, making it impossible to use enemy railroads next to the city even after you capture it. Civ3 model is less stringent in that regard.

Superman is a simple way to express how amplified event make one feel different.

Depending on the kinds of amplification. Multiplying the unit strength by 100 wouldn't make things different in the slightest, while having 10 Nukes at Bronze Working will (through it won't be a change for good).

 

[Shurdus]

this thread keeps getting more hilarious each and every time hclass posts.

So how exactly does Superman make a simple analogy for anything really, when then all you do is having to explain for pages on end what you meant? That does not sound simple to me, that sounds like alot of work!

Then again I have to hand it to you hclass, you can reason very well, although you do not seem very convincing like, ever.

 

[frekk]

Then again I have to hand it to you hclass, you can reason very well

I think "rationalize" is the word you're looking for.

Superman is a simple way to express how amplified event make one feel different.

That's what cheat codes were invented for ... people who don't like a challenge in their games, just want to feel powerful without much effort.

Being "amplified" does make one feel different. For example, the first time you managed to tie your shoelaces, you probably got a thrill of achievement and mastery and said "Yay! I did it!" and beamed and probably danced around (that's what kids do when they learn to tie their shoelaces) because you'd overcome a challenge. But now you are far more skilled, you can do it effortlessly, without even thinking about it; if you do think about it, it's probably only to consider laceless alternatives. Most of us don't get excited about tying our shoes anymore - because it's just too easy to get excited about.

 

[hclass]

Welcome back Shurdus,

It scares me like hell , I thought you really don't bother to listen to all my nonsense any more...

Every game has limitations, although they are more commonly referred to as rules. That being said, you imply now that the player is in some cases restricted just because of the limitations in the AI. So if an AI would fail to perform action X as well as a human could, the human would be restricted to perform action X to th point where the player can no longer do it better than the AI.

Sorry for I have to stop reading up to this part and immediately reply to you.
You have got it wrong, this part:

the human would be restricted to perform action X to th point where the player can no longer do it better than the AI.

That is a very different story from mine.
When I say they put a restriction on something, I am refering to both human and AI players are not allowed to do something (which originally is allowed in earlier CIV)
For example, in the past both parties are allowed to move indefinitely on railroad, now, both can't. (That save Firaxis all the troubles) i.e. it has nothing to do with human can no longer do better than AI.

Have you not been attacked by AI in a sudden (or lost a tech due to quick movement on rail). I have experienced supprising loss like the above (though only very few times). Those were great and very exciting experiece, indeed.

 

[Shurdus]

Thanks for the welcome back! I tried to stay away, but you know how it goes, slow day at the office, taking a peak every once in a while, forum is slow when you sit and click around doing little else, this thread is very active...

And besides, it is very funny how this thread moves from one topic to the next to the next, every tiny detail is argued over and suddenly we are talking about Superman once again.

 

[hclass]

this thread keeps getting more hilarious each and every time hclass posts.

and with your presence, it is like adding fuel to a fire, it become 100 time more hilarious.

So how exactly does Superman make a simple analogy for anything really
...
Then again I have to hand it to you hclass, you can reason very well, although you do not seem very convincing like, ever.

Just an analog to reason out my analog:
You are the Superman of this thread for you have amplied its hilarity...

(Just kidding, please read my reply to Lone Wolf)

 

[Shurdus]

Are you coming on to me?

 

[hclass]

Being "amplified" does make one feel different.

I don't want "Being" I want "Experiencing"
In my Superman story, my role is an audience who experinces amplified things on the screen.
Are you so indulge in the show that you have become "being the Superman" himself?
...
...
Don't you use an amplifier with your sound system... what is that for?
If you do have one, just remove the amplifier, than when your sound system plays, you will definitely feel the difference. You have to give it a try, trust me!

For example, the first time you managed to tie your shoelaces, you probably got a thrill of achievement and mastery and said "Yay! I did it!" and beamed and probably danced around (that's what kids do when they learn to tie their shoelaces) because you'd overcome a challenge. But now you are far more skilled, you can do it effortlessly, without even thinking about it; if you do think about it, it's probably only to consider laceless alternatives. Most of us don't get excited about tying our shoes anymore - because it's just too easy to get excited about.

Man, you have just said what I have always wanted to (but fail)

I recall, when I was a small kid, my father is really good in encouraging me to do something he wanted me to.

The first time I did, he give me a clap.
Second time, he kiss me after a clap.
Thrid time, my mother also join in and I got double rewards
and after don't know how many times...
I am still doing the samething, never tired doing because my parents give me countless rewards...

That is what I mean by something not that great (in its origin) being made great by boosting its rewards...

That tactic is not only working with small kids, it works also with adults.
It can be applied in real world and in game as well... I suppose.

 

[hclass]

Are you coming on to me?

No.
Please don't make me scare again.

I am thinking is it because the difference between the way we lay our reply.

I mean, I notice you like to place a quoted message on top, then all your story below, but I will split out quoted message then reply to each portion one after another... is that make you really uncomfortable, sort like I am start nitpicking again...

 

[frekk]

my parents give me countless rewards...

And so you still do the happy dance when you manage to tie your shoes?