How is it different from putting a settler in first to be sure they do not reach a good city site before you ? Would you think it an exploit to use units of yours to block an AI settler until you could get your settler to the site you want ?
It is very different by this that AI tech preferencies, on which base you can fool it, are certainly not as random as one could expect. It follows a "decryption" of average AI behavior in order to exploit it. That, is not a legitimate move that one can expect from the honest average player. It is more entitled to programmation than honest, in all the meanings of the term, playing.
If all you want is a simple direct linear game rather than one with more possibilities for manipulation, that would work.
No this has nothing to do with a "simple direct linear game". Those are just things over basic understanding. Again, that kind of "manipulation" has nothing to do with playing. It is just analysing the weaknesses of a program and turn them back against it.
Nothing in what I am saying prevents you from doing that. I just do not want only to be able to do that.
The fact is, that researching a tech that you won't use, only for the purpose of trading it to the AI, is exploiting the AI. Plus, it is very counter natural to research a tech you won't use.
Do I need to reiterate yet again that I do not care for "realism" when it cuts against gameplay ?
The fact is, it would not cut against gameplay.
Ah. Now I think I see a bit more clearly.
I don't use the same tech path every game, far from it.
This really reads to me like you wanting to have an aspect of the game made more lively for you, which you could make more lively yourself by shaking up the way you play.
There are so few techs in Civ4 that it would be dishonest not to recognize that you follow more or less the same tech path in Civ4. Except for the few techs that you can miss out that I reviewed earlier, it is pretty the same evolution each game, although the order of them may differ.
With my system, it would be a brand new tech tree each game.
How can you make a strategic plan if the cost is entirely unpredictable ?
By allocating workers on squares like cottages, even though I wish cottages disappear in Civ5.
Again, why not choose a different tech path for novelty ?
LOL. Because if you can see the techs before researching for them, it is not a surprise anymore... for such a simple reason as that.
Which does, incidentally, seem to me to have the major disadvantage of smoothing out tech differences between civs and stopping them from developing distinct strategies.
I don't get you here. In what the fact that you don't have to check AI techs each turn prevents civs to develop distinct strategies? You could always have the good old tech tree a la Civ4, but forbid tech trading, as it is possible in Civ4 by the way. The only reason why I don't use this is that i fear that the AI to be much more easy to beat than with this on.
If this is a complain on the general idea though, I understand that my idea is contradictory with your idea of a wider tech tree in order to play different strategies. But hey, you have this is Alpha Centauri, although the bit of blind redsearch in it may repulse you.
How espionage should work in Civ is a whole different argument; I am not assuming it would be by a model that works the way you assume here.
I assume nothing about the way espionnage should work. By the way, about espionnage, i can say that AI spies annoy me greatly. Plus, the way tech stealing works sees me dubitative, as I nevre managed to steal a tech to the AI, the option simply does not appear.
Well, if you're rejecting all the strategic options I raise here, no wonder you find it disadvantageous; because it sounds like you're not actually bothered to be any good at it.
Because it is a pain for me to chack AI advancement evey turns. Oh, I can occasionnally chack them, but most of the time I fall on unfair trades that I do not validate (Emperor), when the interesting techs are red and impossible to trade, or the unfair factor preventing to do an equal trade (for techs of the exact same value for example)
It seems really weird to me that someone as eager to resort to realism in other arguments is so dismissive of realistically manipulative diplomatic sneakiness as a game element.
The only sneak out there is the AI.
I hate it, and i have to confess that nothing is more iritating for me to see Montezuma to feak out, when
he is the unfair one.
For what I know, exploiting the AI should be the face of the token, but doing so is simply too much contraignant and needs to much 'out game' knowledge for me.
Oh, entirely agreed; this should be something that's available for all the AIs you have contact with on one button at any time.
One button may be too contraingnant for me still. I would rather see no tech trade at all (and the Ai difficulty taking account of that), or automatic tech trade.
And if you play against humans, do you not capitalise on their weaknesses as players if you want to actually win ?
Heh heh, human does not suddenly trade some marginal tech that is abstruse. Plus, tech trade is most of the time off in multiplayer, what is a good thing.
As to capitalize on their weaknesses, no, because considering the numer of different players there is on GameSpy, it is impossible to learn from them.
And if you finally know some guys more closer, you are simply unable to access to their data, unlike you can do for the AI.
Against human players, I do my whole best during the game, and at the end I know if this was enough or not, by looking the screen, if there a "Naokaukodem wins", I am happy, even triomphant some times
, if I see "Naokaukodem loses", I say myself that I will try to do better next time.
Why do you think "already discovered techs" is a benefit ?
It would a benefit for you, that like to choose you next tech among others.
Your model makes it easier to catch up when you're already losing, and harder to get ahead when you are winning. It's a mechanic that forces civilisations towards equality all the time. Is this something you genuinely see as a plus ?
It could belong to the "simple to play and hard to master" sentence.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree here too.
But that would make a sequel worthy of its number. If Civ5 still plays on a basis of Civ4 or Civ3, not sure I will purchase it.
But you're not playing "a king or an emperor". You are playing a civilisation.
That should change.
The more when I see stupid things like cultural conversions, that are made so pacificly that it is not believable.
