Quick Questions , Quick Answers

[Thunderbrd]

Instead you have to use tools other than just plopping more cities to get ahead

Some have argued that this is attacking and villainizing a particular play style rather than trying to make an overall better game. I can understand that argument but I tend to think you're also right because what you're suggesting is indeed how the real world keeps things more balanced between nations. If we conquered all of Africa, due to its underdeveloped state, we'd be doing ourselves far more harm than good as a nation.

One part of the problem we'd really need to address and someone did a mod they wanted to see merged into c2c at some point to achieve this, vassals as they are in CivIV bts are terrible. Being able to pledge yourself to a larger nation during the middle of a war and immediately that means that your enemy is at war with that nation now means war with one will eventually mean war with everybody as soon as you are winning the war. It sucks as a dynamic as a result and is an abhorrent experience in play.

 

[billw2015]

Some have argued that this is attacking and villainizing a particular play style rather than trying to make an overall better game.

"attacking and villainizing"? Probably those people need to drop their persecution complex and over the top rhetoric to start with. Then if they want to explain what their play style is, and why it is a good thing that it be unchanged from a game design perspective, then that would be interesting.
However this is a moot point, given then no body has suggested making this non optional even once.

One part of the problem we'd really need to address and someone did a mod they wanted to see merged into c2c at some point to achieve this, vassals as they are in CivIV bts are terrible. Being able to pledge yourself to a larger nation during the middle of a war and immediately that means that your enemy is at war with that nation now means war with one will eventually mean war with everybody as soon as you are winning the war. It sucks as a dynamic as a result and is an abhorrent experience in play.

Yeah that would be interesting, Paradox games (at least CK2) can give a lot of inspiration of how these systems can function I think, it is a very deep system compared to Civ.

 

[billw2015]

If we conquered all of Africa, due to its underdeveloped state, we'd be doing ourselves far more harm than good as a nation.

Well we (the west) did it, and it gave short term financial gain, followed by the eventual collapse of every single empire involved. However it is pretty clear that the nations involved managed to extract a lot of wealth from Africa (and Asia and America) before they couldn't maintain their empires any more. Probably a net win for them in wealth terms, and a dynamic that should certainly be considered in our mod.

 

[Thunderbrd]

explain what their play style is

Mass unchecked expansion.

why it is a good thing that it be unchanged from a game design perspective, then that would be interesting.

Because that is the enjoyed strategy to employ so inhibiting it directly is an attack on that style of play.

I'm trying to give voice to the arguments I've received over the years, nothing too specific and certainly not exactly my own outlook though I've noted at times there are places where I might feel the same way regarding some proposed mod projects. I'm mentioning it to give it its due for consideration is all.

Well we (the west) did it, and it gave short term financial gain, followed by the eventual collapse of every single empire involved. However it is pretty clear that the nations involved managed to extract a lot of wealth from Africa (and Asia and America) before they couldn't maintain their empires any more. Probably a net win for them in wealth terms, and a dynamic that should certainly be considered in our mod.

Interesting to note that wealth is not the only way then to enforce difficulty on a nation for overexpansion, therefore the upkeep factor is only one.

 

[billw2015]

Mass unchecked expansion.

If something always leads to the best outcome then it isn't a play style, its just how to play (if you want to win and aren't RPing of course).
However I'm not sure anyone really holds this position, I hope it is a straw-man of their real position, but I can't really work out what the steel-manned position would be from that description. Probably need someone who believes it to explain it.

Because that is the enjoyed strategy to employ so inhibiting it directly is an attack on that style of play.

If someone enjoys the "strategy of expansion" they might at least consider if they might enjoy it more if it is made deeper and more challenging. If they don't, then I would question if they really like the strategy bit, as much as the expansion bit.

Regardless this isn't an either/or argument. Personally I would like do something like revs, with a scaled back set of features, and a slider to control its impact. So you can set its difficulty independently from the normal game difficultly (or probably it would be a combination of both to determine the final difficulty), anywhere from no effect to Break up of the Soviet Union.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I hope it is a straw-man of their real position

I've often heard this term used in arguments but I can't say I really understand it. Maybe you could illuminate on the use of the term and what it's exactly supposed to mean?

You're probably right that I've only been able to express the position rather than actually defend it and for that, someone who really feels that way may be better equipped to defend it.

 

[JosEPh_II]

What are my views on how this game should be played, and what is troubling about them?

Perhaps you should reread my statement before the one you quoted.

I said, "Parts of your 2nd plan". I did not elucidate on the "parts of the 2nd plan" because you need to explain better what it is you plan on changing. You only mention revising Rev. And anything afterwards is muddled because it's hard to distinguish where revising Rev and this vague 2nd plan starts.

Yeah I have two current plans for tackling this because it ruins most of the fun imo: improved/reduced revs mod that will make maintaining a larger empire more difficult, especially rapid expansion, and improved AI cooperation when any other civ starts to get too big. I hope to start one or both within the next couple of months or so.

Where is the break point for the 2nd plan? Or is this all for Rev? You conjunctive statement makes it hard to distinguish what it is you are really saying.

Is the 2nd plan this, "and improved AI cooperation when any other civ starts to get too big" ? Or is this a continuation of the Rev idea?

Is it this "especially rapid expansion," ? Or is this too part of the Rev revision you envision?

Perhaps now you might see why I voiced reservations

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm sure we all believe that someone usually snowballs at some point in the game.

Really? What if I say I don't believe that everyone does this. Only the hard core warmonger does this. What if you play a more diplomatic or builder game and only do War when forced to? In other words get DOWed by the AI.

How are my perceptions skewed?

And to not have skewed perceptions having these 3 options On are giving you.

Reread this please. I stated it succinctly.

 

[VCrakeV]

Really? What if I say I don't believe that everyone does this. Only the hard core warmonger does this. What if you play a more diplomatic or builder game and only do War when forced to? In other words get DOWed by the AI.

Reread this please. I stated it succinctly.

You don't have to go to war to snowball. If you are doing better on the tech tree than everyone else in the early game, you can settle new cities before anyone else gets a chance. If you have a large enough lead in tech, you'll be ensured a lead in cities and territory, too. You can snowball this way by being the first to cross seas or oceans as well, claiming uncontested land.

You did state succinctly, but you didn't explain. How do those 3 game options skew my perceptions?

 

[billw2015]

Perhaps you should reread my statement before the one you quoted.

I read it:

But when you start changing base play for those that prefer not to have those restrictions then I do not look forward to parts pf your 2nd part plan for this mod. Just sayin' I'm not liking what I'm reading from you. You have some troubling views imo about How this game should or should not be played.

You didn't ask me to explain anything about what I said, you immediately jumped to a negative conclusion, and then claimed I have troubling views. I'm asking, what views is it you think I have and why are they troubling?

Where is the break point for the 2nd plan? Or is this all for Rev? You conjunctive statement makes it hard to distinguish what it is you are really saying.

Is the 2nd plan this, "and improved AI cooperation when any other civ starts to get too big" ? Or is this a continuation of the Rev idea?

Is it this "especially rapid expansion," ? Or is this too part of the Rev revision you envision?

Again, if you were confused by what I wrote then I would ask that you start by asking for clarification before jumping to conclusion.

My first plan is to get revs to a state where the AI can handle it, and the player isn't confused or frustrated by it. My second plan is to look into inter AI cooperation (and perhaps the available treaties and their mechanics as well). Currently the AI is terrible at co-operating in defensive war efforts (or any really), if they even bother trying, and has no sense of self preservation when it comes to threatening neighbours.
There is no reason both these things can't be optional, in fact I want to make them separate scalable difficulty settings rather than simple toggles so people can choose how much of an effect they will have (something we should consider for all settings where it makes sense).
It would be strange if these things sound bad to you based on your description of how you want to play. They will reward a more careful and conservative play style. Building strong bases of culture, unified religion, relationships with neighbours, etc. will all be rewarded by increased stability. For instance: in this paradigm a small nation with strong foundations has a better chance at holding on to an overseas territory then a giant but unstable nation.

Only the hard core warmonger does this.

Let's be real that is most players, because its the most well rewarded style of play. This is probably why you think the AI is a challenge (from what I have gathered) in some cases how it currently is, because you are choosing to not exploit the easiest roads to beat it. That you choose not to do that doesn't mean the game is correctly balanced as it is. It's like (bad analogy incoming) someone with two arms claiming that fights between people with one arm and people with two are fair, just because they themselves choose to only use one arm. I'm suggesting tying everyone's second arm behind their back. The person who was already doing this is now has the advantage of experience, and a vindication of their approach.

 

[billw2015]

You did state succinctly, but you didn't explain. How do those 3 game options skew my perceptions?

They do it, but in entirely the opposite direction than is useful for Joseph's argument. He seems to think people are using these settings to benefit *themselves* rather than to try and get the AI to be a challenge to expansionists. Using those options can make expansionism slightly less rewarding, but they really can't make a dent in the inherent reward of simply having more cities currently (from what I gather, I didn't play WfL myself).

 

[Thunderbrd]

but they really can't make a dent in the inherent reward of simply having more cities currently (from what I gather, I didn't play WfL myself).

That's the beauty of it... it doesn't penalize you for being ahead. It just gives your competition another edge because you are and based on how far ahead you are. And it doesn't do it like a blunt hammer by making it a direct benefit to them because you're ahead in tech but rather assumes that you're likely going to be pulling ahead in tech because of your # of cities and overall population count and so gives them an edge on tech based on how far ahead you are in those areas instead, which is also going along the lines of the RL argument that a good single refined city can be a lot more enlightened, educated, and purposeful, even the individuals in it being more motivated to excel, than a nation that is bloated and overreaching, making all citizens in it feel like small cogs in a huge machine, none of whom really matter. Nevertheless, while a smaller nation may have greater individual quality by nature of being smaller, it does not have the raw productive power of the larger nation, even in research. That percentage given is really only a handicap, but a truly clever player can play a middle ground game, focusing on quality cities over quantities of cities and tons of population, to use his competition's size to his own advantage, enabling a player to play a more peace-strategy driven game that doesn't always require just making sure you've got the most territory on the board.

 

[VCrakeV]

Is it possible to overwrite railroads with highways? I can't seem to build any, despite having the required tech. Do they work like traditional routes (e.g more tiles traversed per movement point), or like railroads (fixed movement speed)? If it's the former, that would seem to bring some thinking to the table instead of just using the best route. For example, you could use highways where you plan/expect to move a lot of highly mobile units (e.g light tanks), and railroads for slow units (like artillery and infantry).

 

[JosEPh_II]

They do it, but in entirely the opposite direction than is useful for Joseph's argument. He seems to think people are using these settings to benefit *themselves* rather than to try and get the AI to be a challenge to expansionists. Using those options can make expansionism slightly less rewarding, but they really can't make a dent in the inherent reward of simply having more cities currently (from what I gather, I didn't play WfL myself).

Where have I stated this. You infer this from your conversation with T-brd.

My contention is to play without these 3 options On to 1st see how well or bad the AI is playing. Then if you feel the AI needs help turn which ever ones you wish on. But in reality or as an alternate way, perhaps you should 1st increase your Difficulty level to see if these AI is more of a challenge and even if these Player Options being discussed are even needed.

Now you can infer all you want about How I perceive the game, as you already have. That is your choice to make, whether you understand my point or not.

Let's be real that is most players, because its the most well rewarded style of play.

I find this is Not the case. But I will concede that the Players that do use this playstyle are the most vocal on the forum. And Leadership has pushed the Mod in that direction for many years now. To the point that those who do not follow this design are over run and have disappeared from the modding Team over the years. DH being the latest. While not totally gone he is withdrawing more and more every year. He is one of the Original modders SO gathered together when C2C was birthed. (Hydro is gone, koshling is gone, edrinfall is gone, and so many others).

I use all the aspects of the game as best I can to keep my empire alive from the aggressive AI. And the AI Is better than it used to be, thanks to you and the other new modders. Thank you for that improvement. But I do not actively start a war unless I know I'm going to be pinned in from expanding. And the AI is very good at trying to pin it it's neighbors from getting more territory. I'm still finding ways to conduct Culture war, especially in subduing the barbs and to stake my own empire's cultural borders to maintain my cities command of their surrounding tiles.

When I 1st started playing BtS and the 1st mod I had ever used Rise of Mankind 0.84, I was a builder not a fighter. I used the strategy to out build my opponent AI and to get to the point of being the tech leader to keep the war mongering AI at bay. I therefore do not need extremely long game speeds to play with my military units for extended periods before I upgrade them thru tech.

Over the course of Rise of Mankind's development and the inclusion of the modmod A New Dawn, to the Moveing of AND to be a Standalone Mod in it's own right (of which I was a Team member (and still have access to if I want to go back to modding it), to the starting development of C2C at SO's behest I have followed tested and finally become a team member of it. All the while forced to adapt to a more War mongering way of play. I have fought many battles of Mod direction as a player, then tester and finally modder. Now that we have new team members with better C++ coding skills the push to narrow the design of C2C along this Warmonger design path has re-intensified. And as such I will question the why's and the wherefores' of this idea that it is Needed, nay it 's demanded.

Refinement of code is one thing, and in my view the Most important thing for this mod right now. But as time passes the desires of the new and better skilled Team members such as your self billw will take over the design course of this mod's development. I have watched this happen for 10 + years now thru the Team's many modding member groupings that have come and gone. T-brd's perseverance in pushing his War dog ways and being Faithful to squash bugs and at the same time all the while self teaching himself C++ coding has rewarded him with the Team Leadership. So by the very dent of his perseverance he has become the head. Hence his Design is paramount. I have played the devil's advocate to him during all this course of time. And as long as I'm still around I will do the same to you, MattC, raxxo, and all others when I feel that the ideas being implemented restrict other ways of playing this great Mod that I have spent 10+ years being a part of. Dislike me If you feel you must. But I wll Not hold back my criticism of anything added or taken away if I perceive it to limit the scope of other playstyles besides the dominant War mongering.

I have left out much much more that I would like to say. But even this post is tiresome for me to keep having to have go back and correct my bad typing, and my sentences that do not say enough of what my thought process is. I am not the prodigious poster like T-brd. It is hard for me to make these walls of text. And because of that many many times my posts just don't say a; that I'm thinking and trying to convey, to my detriment unfortunately. I can not write mini novels to convey my ideas as clearly as I would like to do.

So in conclusion please drop the preconceived ideas that you are picking up from others about what I'm trying to convey. I could have interjected into T-brd's post about rapid expansionists because I know where he is coming from as it relates to me from past interactions. And when I challenge you about a vague plan that you put out in a simple paragraph way are you getting defensive?

 

[Thunderbrd]

You infer this from your conversation with T-brd.

Just to clarify, I got that impression here:

Disagree completely with your whole premise. And your Poll is also skewed.

If you depend upon TD for keeping you up with the Tech leaders then you do not understand the underlying premise for TD and the authors intent. And you are trying to play on a Difficulty level higher than your current skill set for C2C. The original intent was to boost lagging AI. But that has been somewhat supplanted by players who want to keep up to the more aggressive AI Civs. And have basically "flipped the script" for TD's purpose.

Play without TD On for awhile, many games. Same for Win for Losing. Both these Options are basically now Crutches for players so they can play at a higher Difficulty. Too many players want to boast I play on Deity, an ego thing. When in reality they are Not Deity players.

So again, your premise and wanting to redesign TD is kind of backwards imhpo. And you have left out that by the time you get to mid to late eras the research rates for all players has grown exponentially over the beginning of the game thru many factors. So larger boosts in later eras that you want is flat out wrong. We've kinda been there and done that in the past.

I would swear you've reworded this since it was originally written but I got the impression you were saying that 'people are using these settings to benefit *themselves* rather than to try and get the AI to be a challenge to expansionists.'

 

[billw2015]

Now that we have new team members with better C++ coding skills the push to narrow the design of C2C along this Warmonger design path has re-intensified

I'm still confused about why you think this is what I am doing. You didn't explain it yet. What about anything I have suggested would *help* warmongers? It is literally the opposite. This indicates to me you aren't actually reading what I am typing, or if you are you aren't making any effort to understand it. This impression is further bolstered by your failure to ask me to explain, and the fact you are ignoring that I said this would be optional multiple times.

Dislike me If you feel you must.

What?

So in conclusion please drop the preconceived ideas that you are picking up from others about what I'm trying to convey.

I'm not picking them up from others, I'm reading what you write and interpreting it. As you won't answer my direct questions I don't have much choice. If you want to be understood then you better actually engage in discussion. You didn't engage with anything I wrote at all. I asked you a question, I explained some of what I want to do, and how it would interact with a non military play style. You didn't comment on any of it.

And when I challenge you about a vague plan that you put out in a simple paragraph way are you getting defensive?

In what way am I being defensive? I am defending my plans, but given you are attacking them without even really knowing what they are, that seems appropriate.

I would swear you've reworded this since it was originally written but I got the impression you were saying that 'people are using these settings to benefit *themselves* rather than to try and get the AI to be a challenge to expansionists.'

There was nothing in the original proposal in that thread that indicated the changes were motivated by the desire to make the game easier for either the AI OR the player.

 

[billw2015]

But I wll Not hold back my criticism of anything added or taken away if I perceive it to limit the scope of other playstyles besides the dominant War mongering.

That would be great, when you do I will be interested to read it.

 

[raxo2222]

Refinement of code is one thing, and in my view the Most important thing for this mod right now. But as time passes the desires of the new and better skilled Team members such as your self billw will take over the design course of this mod's development. I have watched this happen for 10 + years now thru the Team's many modding member groupings that have come and gone. T-brd's perseverance in pushing his War dog ways and being Faithful to squash bugs and at the same time all the while self teaching himself C++ coding has rewarded him with the Team Leadership. So by the very dent of his perseverance he has become the head. Hence his Design is paramount. I have played the devil's advocate to him during all this course of time. And as long as I'm still around I will do the same to you, MattC, raxxo, and all others when I feel that the ideas being implemented restrict other ways of playing this great Mod that I have spent 10+ years being a part of. Dislike me If you feel you must. But I wll Not hold back my criticism of anything added or taken away if I perceive it to limit the scope of other playstyles besides the dominant War mongering.

@Thunderbrd said before, that he's very focused on war stuff, because everyone else does non-war stuff.
Also he wants to do non-military stuff after he finishes unit review and combat mods.

My changes don't restrict gameplay, in fact it made peace time part of mod better.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There was nothing in the original proposal in that thread that indicated the changes were motivated by the desire to make the game easier for either the AI OR the player.

I know... he was claiming that you were inferring that position from what I had said when I was pointing out he had made the point directly himself.

@Thunderbrd said before, that he's very focused on war stuff, because everyone else does non-war stuff.
Also he wants to do non-military stuff after he finishes unit review and combat mods.

Thanks for remembering this Rax! I do feel this game cannot be made a solid intricate one of peace and building without making sure that the balance and complexity on the warfare and tactical side isn't also strong. Both of those elements must be balanced to each other to bring more meaning to each other.

 

[MattCA]

I will do the same to you, MattC, raxxo,

Hey, I got mentioned along with some of the top modders around here.
That's success for a noob.