- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Info on Next Patch
- Thread starter Rohili
- Start date
bonafide11
Worker
That's exactly what I want. It's stupid if I meet another continent around 1500 AD and all their Civs have relatively equal scores. I want some Civs to be dominating and other Civs to be doing horrible. Usually by that time, I've completely dominated my continent, and I'd like to have some competition on the other continent instead of just having some backward mediocre Civs that I can easily conquer without a problem.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
One way to reward both large cities and investment in infrastructure would be to make specialists multiplicative. Have the first scientist produce x beakers, the second produce 2x beakers, the third 3x beakers etc. Then large cities that can afford investment in many science buildings and has a population large enough to have specialists for them (also, has food supporting infrastructure) has dramatically greater science output than many small cities.
smellymummy
King
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2002
- Messages
- 705
awesome idea
The Tollan
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 418
It seems to me likely that the developers do intend to redress the balance on the social policies regardless of the current changes.
Forcing use of earlier policies may be a part of the reason for the new "immediate selection" system but it does not seem likely that the change is primarily about fixing the policy imbalance problem. Others have argued that the developers originally intended policies to be selected immediately. I suspect that this is the case.
It seems like the developers will at some point attempt to address the balance issue on the policies. It would be be necessary for game balance to do so. Certain policies will remain very ineffective to select until they are improved (ignoring the possibility of mass nerfs to others). The current changes look like only an opening act in the saga of SP alteration.
jacyp
Winter Lover
Why? I don't see why. My cities doesn't stop growing when I spam more of them, so what stops me from getting the early advantage that only ICS can give me and still grow the same 10 size city to take advantage of buildings, while having the other smaller cities making things easier to me providing me gold to pay upkeep for the costly build that only my large city will have?
You make an assumption that the game give you the choice of having a size 10 city or three size 5 cities. This is wrong, in this game you have the option of having a size 10 city or have a size 9 city with two size 4 cities. Guess what option is the best? So, ICS still the best strategy with your sugestions. Honestly, don't try to make ICS a simple matter of adjusting some bonuses and costs, cos it isn't. That's why it will be hard to eliminate ICS as the overpower strategy that it is right now, and keep the balance of all other elements in the game. Fireaxis has no simple task at hand.
A good game would make ICS have advantages and disadvantages, and would make it to be leveled with other strategies. If your opinion is that ICS shouldn't be in a game at all, then you are limiting the game to your preferences, and that would make the game a disaster to anyone but the one's who simpathyse with your strategy. The game should give you the option to play the game the way you want and not be penalised by it.
You have missed the point entirely. The point is that YOU ALSO won't be dominating anything.
mercury529
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 180
I like a lot of the new changes. I too am skeptical about the required use of the SPs.
While complicated I can think of three changes that might work out well:
1.) When you acquire a Social Policy, it is tied to that era and can only be used for SPs in that era or earlier.
2.) When you reach a new era, half of the SPs (rounded down) in the immediately previous era become SPs in the current era.
3.) You cannot purchase a SP if it results in more than half of your SPs belonging to the current era.
This does a few things. One, it largely eliminates the abusive aspects of saving SPs. Two, it encourages some distribution in the earlier trees. Three, it still encourages players to save SPs if the long term gain outweighs the short term (since you can take half of the SPs from the previous era provided you haven't used them). I personally like that aspect, even if the AI struggles with it.
While complicated I can think of three changes that might work out well:
1.) When you acquire a Social Policy, it is tied to that era and can only be used for SPs in that era or earlier.
2.) When you reach a new era, half of the SPs (rounded down) in the immediately previous era become SPs in the current era.
3.) You cannot purchase a SP if it results in more than half of your SPs belonging to the current era.
This does a few things. One, it largely eliminates the abusive aspects of saving SPs. Two, it encourages some distribution in the earlier trees. Three, it still encourages players to save SPs if the long term gain outweighs the short term (since you can take half of the SPs from the previous era provided you haven't used them). I personally like that aspect, even if the AI struggles with it.
I've taken both quotes as an example.
What becomes obvious by both postings is that we have a multitude of expectations how a game should be allowed to run.
The one wants to go for cultural victory, the other one wants to go for quick domination, the third wants to have a big empire and decide later, for which victory type he's going.
So, any adjustment has to be done with one thing in mind:
Allow as many strategies as possible without making one of them predominant.
In the case of the above quotes, I agree with some nations should have the chance to become dominating a whole continent.
But (and this is a big "but") that's not the whole picture. Talking about continents maps, these dominant nations then have to impose a thread to me, sitting on another continent, too. Otherwise I could just lean back and do, whatever I want to do.
And this now is about balancing: to make these other nations become a thread for me, they should understand the cultural victory, they should understand the diplomatic victory, they should understand the scientific victory, as all three can be achieved without interference between the continents.
And finally they should understand ocean-crossing invasions, as otherwise they don't impose a military threat.
Funny enough, but improving the military component of the AI is expected to make stronger nations even stronger. They have the upper edge in terms of military, and should become good enough to make use of it => they crush the smaller nations => leading to the problems of the previous paragraph.
And that is, why so many experienced players are so dissatisfied with the game in total: you cannot change just this *one* gameplay element and everything becomes fine and good. In the best case by changing just one thing you don't change the overall experience, in the worst case the balance get's completely blown.
Once again, this seems to be about balance.
In my view, connecting certain SP trees to "ages" was a horrible idea. Not only, because it isn't plausible in any way, but because it is limiting and leads directly to bee-lining.
The sooner I go to more advanced "ages", the better: I get more from the CS and I do have more options in SP.
In total, I make the options to pick SP's being dependant on my bee-lining. less on cultural growth, and for sure not on having a balanced mix of technologies.
This once more leads to the feeling that it is just a "game", killing immersion.
You don't have to build and grow a balanced empire, you have to run through the techtree in a selective way.
Since the requirements for SP's aren't plausible, but completely artificial anyway, I would propose to disconnect them from "ages", but to make the availability of a new branch being dependant on the number of SP's you would already have acquired.
Say, for unlocking Patronage you would have to have three SP's already, whatever they are.
Txurce
Deity
Who defines "experienced"? "Top"? "Optimal"? "Casual"? You and your like-minded posters? Say it often enough and it becomes true may work for Fox News, but not here.
Moderator Action: Don't troll other posters.
As a rule of thumb:
Whenever you cannot counter another poster's criticism other then by asking: "Who defines "experienced"? "Top"? "Optimal"? "Casual"? You and your like-minded posters?" you can assume him to be a more experienced player than you.
Moderator Action: And backtrolling is also not allowed.
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
Huh? You don't need to cheat to be a runaway, humans do it all the time.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
The runaway AI is a consequence of the broken diplomatic system. If there is one large power (say, Napoleonic France) the best course of action is for the other nations to band together to fight the threat. In the current setup the smaller nations assist the large one in gobbling them up one by one. The premium on offense also ensures that conquering is too easy and defending is too difficult - along with the inability to raise troops rapidly in the event of hostilities.
It'd make much more sense if there were "peaceful" AIs aiming for space and culture wins (the diplomacy win is terrible and should be rethought.) These AIs would form mutual self-defense pacts of some sort.
I think this is related to what Icshnarch is saying - the problems with the game are deep and interlocking, and it's not clear that they can be repaired without a complete overhaul.
It'd make much more sense if there were "peaceful" AIs aiming for space and culture wins (the diplomacy win is terrible and should be rethought.) These AIs would form mutual self-defense pacts of some sort.
I think this is related to what Icshnarch is saying - the problems with the game are deep and interlocking, and it's not clear that they can be repaired without a complete overhaul.
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
And it all starts with 1UpT.
Dark_Jedi06
"Deus ex Machina."
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,451
On a side note, please bring back the "Regenerate Map" option on the first turn...
Txurce
Deity
This has pretty much been fixed by the Balance mods. I have played four games with the more recent city and combat mod improvements, and there has been no runaway AI (or anything even close) in any of these games.
Is it harder to defeat a runaway civ compared to less dominant civs?
Txurce
Deity
No runaway civ makes it easier for the human player, not just because there's no military monster, but because profitable trading lasts much longer. But the more balanced game is definitely more interesting.
hardcore_gamer
King
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 672
Why? Almost all of the whining I have heard about 1upt being horrible has had less to do with it not working as intended and more to do with the people complaining about it being either unable or unwilling to use strategy to adapt to the (intentional) limitations of the system.
People can no longer just hurl a bunch of units into a city that is located in spots where space is sparse, so they cry that the whole system is broken. The inability to move large armies on small areas is intentional, you are expected to think outside the box to take cities on small islands and the like.
The only truly valid complaint I have heard thus far is that you can't stack worker units. Complaining that moving the units takes long is just lazy.
I'm sorry Txurce, but he was right. Of course it's not 100% this way, but it's clear that there are much more non civ fanatics that like civ5 than the oposite.
Like somebody I know would say, the evidence is clear
