Random events and huts.

[AutomatedTeller]

Yes, because "you win" or "you lose" random events are comparable to different AI personalities (this assuming that the AI has a personality).

I truly believe there is only one "you lose" random event, which is the vedic aryans, and that's only if it occurs before you get a counter to archers or can build 4 warriors for city defense. Which is quite possible on higher levels, as the AI starts with archery and someone will get polytheism by 3000 BC or so.

That the various barb uprising events are seen as game over is mainly because humans run a heavy farmer's gambit and ignore archery because it's useless and because the AI won't attack you until later in the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I truly believe there is only one "you lose" random event, which is the vedic aryans, and that's only if it occurs before you get a counter to archers or can build 4 warriors for city defense. Which is quite possible on higher levels, as the AI starts with archery and someone will get polytheism by 3000 BC or so.

That the various barb uprising events are seen as game over is mainly because humans run a heavy farmer's gambit and ignore archery because it's useless and because the AI won't attack you until later in the game.

Losing 10000 , being forced to declare on other people when they'd otherwise not declare on you, and vedic aryans are all legit "you lose".

Farmer's gambits generally do not account for teleport assaults. Also, high levels force farmer's gambits by design, while on low ones the AI is worthless and it barely matters what you do. In MP it's just a question of whether you can outplay the other guy by enough to overcome the resulting deficit.

 

[babar]

I think the main problem is that Firaxis forgot something - people don't LIKE events like that. They didn't like the dark ages concept in early versions of Civ III, so made them golden ages, instead.

Slave revolts shouldn't have been an event - they should be something like "every angry face in a city gives a cumulative 3% chance of a slave revolt every turn if you are in slavery", as opposed to just a random event that could hit a city that has never, ever been whipped.

The Bermuda triangle event is bad, even though it has historical precedent. It probably should be invalidated after satellites, or maybe radio or something that could give warning of horrible storms.

or, of course, it could do different things that wipe out the stack - for each ship, x% of sinking outright, x% chance of massive damage that might sink it, x% of minimal damage, x% chance of surviving.

I agree, I would (maybe) like events if they worked along these lines. But think I it would take vastly more work than it's worth to properly integrate events with the player's actions, so that their implementation would become appropriate for a strategy game.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

It's really quite simple IMHO ( and I'm only regurgitating what has already been said in this thread ) . Random events would be great IF , in anticipation of them , the player could make strategic choices based on their impact . But no one is avoiding slavery in anticipation of a revolt .No one is opening with 5 warriors in anticipation of the Vedic Arayans etc etc etc . Therefore , in the context of "What constitutes a welcome addition to a strategy game ?" , events fail this test .

This is entirely independent of whether , regardless of the above , a player still likes them . But "liking" them and thus stating that are a well designed mechanic doesn't really cut it .

 

[MilesBeyond]

I actually like the Slave Revolt event, because it gives pause for thought to an otherwise powerful civic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I actually like the Slave Revolt event, because it gives pause for thought to an otherwise powerful civic.

False.

Trading away up 100's of to avoid a *chance* at revolt is a sucker bet.

Do you open with 4 warriors every game before constructing a worker in hopes you don't die to aryans, too?

 

[rah]

I agree with miles. Slavery is too powerful. Anything that make you think about limiting it's use is good.
It does make me use Caste more and just fall back to slavery when I need a whipping spree.

Agreed the aryans are silly, and should be limited to showing up later.

IF they show up that early you haven't really wasted that much time. And I can think of a few times when it was early and it wasn't a game ender. Hating all events because of 1 or 2 is overkill.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree with miles. Slavery is too powerful. Anything that make you think about limiting it's use is good.

This is the wrong approach to a strategy game.

*Randomly* penalizing players for making intelligent strategy games is not really a valid thing to do. Better would be any from this list:

- Simply nerf slavery consistently for everyone, rather than randomly penalizing 1-2 civs for doing the obviously intelligent thing that every other civ is also doing.
- Buff alternative civics such that they compete with it better (especially serfdom, which is laughably terrible for every single ancient start I've seen just about).
- Redistribute map tiles such that whipping is an obvious choice *much* less often.

It's not like they didn't have 2 full expansions and over a dozen patches to think "hey, maybe this civic is being overused because it's too powerful, and we should address it directly".

Of all the civics in the game, slavery is among the few that are in the "almost always use this" category (others being bureaucracy and either monarchy or rep). Environmentalism is a bit on the weak side, though being forced into it is probably part of the reason. Serfdom? That's one of those facepalm moments for firaxis. Serfdom SUCKS in-game, and yet there's no valid reason why that needs to be the case.

 

[rah]

having a civic that is "almost always use" doesn't belong in a strategy game by your own definition.

While I agree that there are many other ways to handle that, I think the slave revolt is a step in the right direction. The chance that it can happen has to weigh into the decision. You make a decision to ignore that risk. Maybe they should have made the event more devastating so it wouldn't be such a no-brainer for you.

 

[King Pluto]

having a civic that is "almost always use" doesn't belong in a strategy game by your own definition.

While I agree that there are many other ways to handle that, I think the slave revolt is a step in the right direction. The chance that it can happen has to weigh into the decision. You make a decision to ignore that risk. Maybe they should have made the event more devastating so it wouldn't be such a no-brainer for you.

Balance and strategy are two different things. Most people would probably agree that Slavery is clearly the best civic choice in many cases, so you can argue the balance of the civic is poor. However, the strategy choice to use the best civic surely belongs in a strategy game. The strategy is to use the best option, and too bad if the developers didn't balance it well enough. Regardless of revolts, the production gained by Slavery is still better than whatever the default civic is for labor.

 

[rah]

Then there shouldn't be any complaints about the slave revolts since regardless you choose slavery.
This balances it a bit better. Granted more should be done.

 

[r_rolo1]

Using random penalties as a balancer is probably the worst possible idea you can have ... because:

a) You can't do anything about it except not use the feature ( or game the RNG via reloads ). That is all fine and dandy until you reckon that after BW and until CoL/Feudalism you have tribalism or slavery as only options ... so, unless the random event is really bad ( tsunami event bad ) the event will not balance out Slavery vs tribalism aka essentially nothing ( and then if would make slavery really bad compared with even serfdom ). In fact, that is a position that I am defending for quite a while: the events system that firaxis designed for BtS is not balanced and it is highly unlikely that it can be balanced at all :/

b) The didactic potential of a random event is zero, especially if, as it happens in BtS, there is zero explanation of the events pre-conditions in the event text ( even if they did , what would you learn ? That the RNG god might get angry at you if you whip ? :/ ). That is completely different of swapping civics, since the effects of the civics are constant and well described ( well, reasonably ... the Theocracy text is completely misleading ) ... thus you can make informed choices if you want to.

 

[rah]

I get COL quite early in games and will use it to crank GSs.
I'll only use slavery early when food can rebuild the effects from slavery quickly. When you have a city above size 10 and can crank a unit out in 1 or 2 turns, whipping that city doesn't seem as good as an idea.

If I need to drop into slavery for some short term whipping, the event is a reminder that you shouldn't stay that long. (and I usually reserve that if I'm spiritual or for some GAs.)

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, that is a "how I play" argument ... fair enough for you , but really bad for generalizations. I might want my citizens working the land instead of being popping GSs, or being gunning for a early Lit. Or I might be playing Monty or have the Kremlin ... or being cottage spamming and using whip for making the basic infra.

Anyway, Caste has it's own benefits that are pretty good in themselves in BtS and is a decent contender with slavery even without a event busting slavery randomly ( btw, why no caste negative event ? Caste is good enough and some people find it even more morally questionable than slavery ... ). The issue is before that ... and as you should know, the first turns are far more critical than turn 100. And that is where the slavery event is both damaging when it happens and not enough to make sense to leave slavery because of it ...

 

[rah]

Everything I've seen here is a how i play argument.

And I think the event is the risk for running a superior civic. If they nerfed whipping some, you would still select it, and wouldn't complain that it was nerfed. I don't see a difference between the two except one is random but over time will average out.

 

[r_rolo1]

No they won't average with time. I already discussed it in length in other thread, but to resume, events in BtS will NEVER average out unless by sheer luck due to how the system is implemented ( due to the way the game chooses certain events to appear in a game ). That, by default, will apply to the slave revolt event : you will get games where running slavery will never give you a single revolt even if you run it for 1500 turns and in others you will get revolts in top of revolts ...

Anyway, I don't want to go ad hominen , but you said 2 posts ago that you go CoL and caste ASAP. That does not bode well with considering Slavery as a top notch civic that need the event bomb to be curbed ... and BTW atleast I'm not doing a "how I play argument"

 

[rah]

Slave revolts are one of the reasons I do beeline COL.
I once sat in a 12 turn slave revolt, so I use it less than others here. Usually early and then later just for special occasions.

 

[lymond]

Slavery is the best civic in the game hands-down. It's how you win on higher levels. Caste is also important in many games as well, but as a temp switch during your first or second golden age to pump out Great People. I will often use Caste late game though, if I go late like Space, once my cities grow large and are self-sufficient production wise. Caste is great with State Prop.

Random Events suck and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind on that fact. They don't belong in the standard CIV game. They are fine for role-playing type scenarios. With that said, it certainly doesn't bother me that you like them and use them. Too each their own. Just don't expect to convince many people otherwise. Event/Huts is an argument that has been brought up ad nauseum on this forum and the argument always leads to the same place....nowhere.

 

[rah]

Slavery is the best civic in the game hands-down.

Then you shouldn't have such a problem with something that can potentially penalize someone for using it and making it a choice vs an automatic.

Remember, its' just your opinion. I'll agree they may not belong in comparison games but in the standard CIV game your opinion carries no more weight then mine. We have a large group that enjoys them in our MP games. (which is why I consider your "role-playing" comment as condescending and about as insulting as you can get) The biggest difference is that I was looking for an open discussion about it. (I have just really started posting here so have no clue or care about what has gone on before) The snobbish attitude of a few of the people here is what astonished me. Get over yourselves, it's only a ******** game that was created for them to make some money off our entertainment.
Some of the abuse I see targeted at the newer posters is inexcusable. (I do appreciate those that are more patient or use humor) I've experience many sites that have dried up due to that type of behavior.

I have appreciated a lot of the discussion that has provided plenty of food for thought. (yours also)
I'll agree that I probably won't change your mind, but that doesn't mean you're automatically right or that some people don't want to hear others opinions. It really doesn't matter to me who's right. (I'm always going to play the way I want or how the group I play with decides) I just like discussing it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Slave revolts are one of the reasons I do beeline COL.
I once sat in a 12 turn slave revolt, so I use it less than others here. Usually early and then later just for special occasions.

That doesn't sound like a good idea. I've lost combat at 99.1% odds before. Perhaps I shouldn't fight, or fight at higher odds. If you keep switching back and forth in fear of revolts, then you'll be stuck playing spiritual. But since you want to claim events even out over the long long run, perhaps you should just eat the revolts since slavery is still superior despite those random occurrences. Events just make the outliers more extreme and nerfed slavery a bit more sporadically. But you're still losing hammers by not using slavery in fear of a low occurrence event.

The fact is that events punish people inconsistently through games. Yes, it will even out eventually. But it doesn't justify itself.

Aryan Archers will also even out over the long run, because optimal play (pretending they don't exist) will lead to higher win rates regardless if they are turned off or not. Nobody sensible will build 5 warriors to defend against it on a regular basis and end up more successful than someone who doesn't. Does it make them any better? No.