Technology should matter again

AI and human players havee different types of bonuses. There's no need to give AI mementos and write some complex logic to use them as players will not see them anyway. First rule of game design - what player doesn't see, doesn't exist.

It's better to just give AI some simple math bonuses to things AI does already.
 
AI and human players havee different types of bonuses. There's no need to give AI mementos and write some complex logic to use them as players will not see them anyway. First rule of game design - what player doesn't see, doesn't exist.

It's better to just give AI some simple math bonuses to things AI does already.

One of my biggest problems right now is the AI will have insane science and culture, then you take one of their big cities or the capital and they've barely built any current age buildings. I guess it's a way to keep the player from snowballing from war, but I CAN see those yields. I CANNOT (usually) see that they produce units for free or discounted or whatever, so it doesn't bother me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
One of my biggest problems right now is the AI will have insane science and culture, then you take one of their big cities or the capital and they've barely built any current age buildings. I guess it's a way to keep the player from snowballing from war, but I CAN see those yields. I CANNOT (usually) see that they produce units for free or discounted or whatever, so it doesn't bother me.
I'm more concerned about AI not building unique quarters, they often combine unique buildings with non-unique ones. I would prefer those buildings in better shape.
 
Thanks for the info. I like what you're saying about underpowered cavalry, but immediately still pining for the slightly wider change: could the lack of a resource lead to an entirely different technology? Also, crucial strategic resources caused wars in the game (as in real life); I used to like games where I'd settled into a nice peaceful groove, focussing on science or culture, then I discover electricity and find there's no aluminium anywhere in my territory. If I couldn't find a friendly city state to befriend, I'd suddenly be forced onto a war footing. Civ VII has eliminated those kinds of unexpected twists, which feels like a loss.
We had some pretty wide-ranging discussions about this back in Civ VI days, and I'll repeat what I said then:
The actual amount of Resource or raw material needed was for most of history small enough, or in small enough parcels, that it would be delivered if you needed it bad enough (ie: were willing to pay for it). A Roman Legionary could be completely equipped with iron-based armor, weapons and equipment using about 50 - 100 kg of iron ore or less than 50 kg of 'raw' wrought iron. That's 1 - 2 donkey packloads. An entire Legion of 4 - 5000 men could be equipped for about 200 - 250 tons of iron, or about 3 - 5 Classical shiploads.

So 'raw material shortages' as long as the material is available anywhere, was never a thing: Tin from Afghanistan or Cornwall made the Bronze that powered the empires of Mesopotamia and Myceneans in Greece. The Chinese famously traded silk, porcelain, and other 'high tech' goods for warhorses from Their Enemies, the Northern (steppe) Barbarians for centuries. As long as you didn't have to cross wide areas of Deep Ocean, there was always a way to get the resources.

That is, until the Industrial Era (beginning of the Modern Age, roughly, in Civ VII). A single kilometer of single track, relatively light railroad requires 100 tons of iron or steel rails. Add in iron for locomotives, car wheels, sidings, stations, water towers and other required auxiliary equipment and even the shortest railroad requires as much worked iron as the entire Roman Imperial Army did. Furthermore, even a small steam engine with compound cylinders (common after 1880 CE) requires more precise machining and manufacturing techniques than anything built before 1776 - before that approximate date, they couldn't even build the machinery to build the machines required to make s team-powered ships, railroad locomotives, or modern artillery 'work'.

By 'changing the rules' for each Age, Civ VII starts to approach the massive changes that took place in how and what could be built pre- and post-Industrialization. Unfortunately, they almost completely miss the political and social changes that Industrialization brought: as in, it created an entirely new class of people in industrialized societies: the Urban Factory Worker.

Cue Marx and Engels, the British Labor and LIberal political parties, German Social Democracy, the Labor Union movements in every nation. Only later, in the 20th century, did these and other effects spawn the Ideologies that the Modern Age in Civ VII focuses on. I think it would have made a much more interesting game if you started the Modern Age having to deal with Railroads, Factories, and a radical change in your political and social society, and then later also had to deal with Ideological Conflict: two 'Crisis Periods' in the Age, so to speak. giving the gamer escalating problems to deal with as he/she claws their way to 'Victory'.
 
I'm more concerned about AI not building unique quarters, they often combine unique buildings with non-unique ones. I would prefer those buildings in better shape.

That absolutely blows my mind. In fact it pisses me off. Just like the shipbuilding 2 bug. I'm no coder, but those two issues just cannot be that hard to fix. There is no way.
 
That sounds so cool! A game that treated ages like that would be awesome. I guess Paradox style games are the closest to that sort of thing?
I've never played Paradox's 19th century games like Victoria, so can't comment on that.

But Civ VII has the framework to do something like that, with the Crisis and distinct Age systems Provide 'lesser Crisis' triggers within the Age, and it wouldn't be too hard to present the gamer with such 'Fun' Historical Events as the End of the Bronze Age Collapse of Empires in the Middle East, the Religious Wars of the Crusades, the Industrialization Crisis of the 19th century.
 
We had some pretty wide-ranging discussions about this back in Civ VI days, and I'll repeat what I said then:
The actual amount of Resource or raw material needed was for most of history small enough, or in small enough parcels, that it would be delivered if you needed it bad enough (ie: were willing to pay for it). A Roman Legionary could be completely equipped with iron-based armor, weapons and equipment using about 50 - 100 kg of iron ore or less than 50 kg of 'raw' wrought iron. That's 1 - 2 donkey packloads. An entire Legion of 4 - 5000 men could be equipped for about 200 - 250 tons of iron, or about 3 - 5 Classical shiploads.

So 'raw material shortages' as long as the material is available anywhere, was never a thing: Tin from Afghanistan or Cornwall made the Bronze that powered the empires of Mesopotamia and Myceneans in Greece. The Chinese famously traded silk, porcelain, and other 'high tech' goods for warhorses from Their Enemies, the Northern (steppe) Barbarians for centuries. As long as you didn't have to cross wide areas of Deep Ocean, there was always a way to get the resources.

That is, until the Industrial Era (beginning of the Modern Age, roughly, in Civ VII). A single kilometer of single track, relatively light railroad requires 100 tons of iron or steel rails. Add in iron for locomotives, car wheels, sidings, stations, water towers and other required auxiliary equipment and even the shortest railroad requires as much worked iron as the entire Roman Imperial Army did. Furthermore, even a small steam engine with compound cylinders (common after 1880 CE) requires more precise machining and manufacturing techniques than anything built before 1776 - before that approximate date, they couldn't even build the machinery to build the machines required to make s team-powered ships, railroad locomotives, or modern artillery 'work'.

By 'changing the rules' for each Age, Civ VII starts to approach the massive changes that took place in how and what could be built pre- and post-Industrialization. Unfortunately, they almost completely miss the political and social changes that Industrialization brought: as in, it created an entirely new class of people in industrialized societies: the Urban Factory Worker.

Cue Marx and Engels, the British Labor and LIberal political parties, German Social Democracy, the Labor Union movements in every nation. Only later, in the 20th century, did these and other effects spawn the Ideologies that the Modern Age in Civ VII focuses on. I think it would have made a much more interesting game if you started the Modern Age having to deal with Railroads, Factories, and a radical change in your political and social society, and then later also had to deal with Ideological Conflict: two 'Crisis Periods' in the Age, so to speak. giving the gamer escalating problems to deal with as he/she claws their way to 'Victory'.

Thanks for the education and I think your ideas for modern are fantastic. Are you going to treat your workers better (less production, perhaps more food required to grow) or are you going to risk your factories being burned down? No one turn gold repair either, must rebuild or buy from scratch. Just an idea. I love the concept.
 
Last edited:
That absolutely blows my mind. In fact it pisses me off. Just like the shipbuilding 2 bug. I'm no coder, but those two issues just cannot be that hard to fix. There is no way.
Screwing up Unique Quarters, not understanding the optimal sequence of research to run the Exploration Age - Same mistakes I made in my first game. Apparently the AI is also bamboozled by the utter lack of useful UI or Civilopedia, the difference is that the AI in the game Never Learns Any Better.
 
That absolutely blows my mind. In fact it pisses me off. Just like the shipbuilding 2 bug. I'm no coder, but those two issues just cannot be that hard to fix. There is no way.
I've heard it said that the AI just goes by what would give the highest yields and does not take into account the Unique Quarter benefits. Though it's also said that this might often be the right approach instead of blindly building Unique Quarters in every city (depending on the civ, of course).
 
This reminds me - I wish we could have different units depending on our surrounding resources. So Elephant Archer for example wouldn't be unique to Indians, it would be available to anyone near Elephants only. And same for Horse and Camel units.
Rather than Horse units being the main and just spin off cavalry units for camels and elephants, you could instead have your 'main' cavalry be whatever animal is near you.
Wouldn't that make your choice of civilization and tech even less impactful, though?
 
The AI should be able to break the game as well. Not just the player. The Ai hasn't been able to even play Civ in many years.
I'm not sure it would be fun to e.g. play as the Heart of the Spire against an AI controlled Ironclad who has achieved infinite, lol. Games focused on letting players "break" them are basically always singleplayer. There's certainly no mass appeal in being on the receiving end of it. Besides, the whole fun of it is figuring out the gamebreaking synergies yourself and seeing your numbers go up.
 
Wouldn't that make your choice of civilization and tech even less impactful, though?
Well I imagine that their bonuses would be different. So maybe they start near Elephants but having Elephant Cavalry isn't unique to any one Civ. Maybe they get a bonus to Elephant Cavalry. Maybe they get a Unique elephant cavalry replacement.
So for example Elephant Archer is for everyone near an Elephant and a named Elephant Archer replacement is for Indians only.
 
Well I imagine that their bonuses would be different. So maybe they start near Elephants but having Elephant Cavalry isn't unique to any one Civ. Maybe they get a bonus to Elephant Cavalry. Maybe they get a Unique elephant cavalry replacement.
So for example Elephant Archer is for everyone near an Elephant and a named Elephant Archer replacement is for Indians only.
Funny how whenever someone brings up needing a certain Resource to build a unit, Elephants rumble into the discussion.

Which is undertandable, because they are a singular military resource.

But they are also one of the hardest resources to spread, simply because they have never been 'domesticated' - as in, unlike cattle, horses, sheep, etc they have never been bred in any great numbers in captivity, they have always been caught from the wild and trained. That means, unless they are already in the 'wild' they can only be obtained by trading for tamed elephants from someone else who already is catching and training them.

In game terms, that means if you don't start or settle next to an Elephant Resource, the only way to build elephant units would be to trade for an Elephant Resource first. That could certainly be included in the game, but that makes elephant (or Camel Riders, or any other unit requiring a specific natural resource) units different from those requiring horses or iron, which now only get bonuses from the resource, not a requirement for it.

To be consistent, then, access to an Elephant Resource should enhance any elephant unit, not be a requirement to build it.
 
I've heard it said that the AI just goes by what would give the highest yields and does not take into account the Unique Quarter benefits. Though it's also said that this might often be the right approach instead of blindly building Unique Quarters in every city (depending on the civ, of course).
I split my unique buildings up occasionally. You only need 1 quarter to get the great people, if there even is a great person. Ones like the Maya quarter a little more important because you get a boost instead of a GP. That boost continue thru the ages, the GP option does not.
 
I'm not sure it would be fun to e.g. play as the Heart of the Spire against an AI controlled Ironclad who has achieved infinite, lol. Games focused on letting players "break" them are basically always singleplayer. There's certainly no mass appeal in being on the receiving end of it. Besides, the whole fun of it is figuring out the gamebreaking synergies yourself and seeing your numbers go up.
Well that's just like your opinion man!
 
Well I imagine that their bonuses would be different. So maybe they start near Elephants but having Elephant Cavalry isn't unique to any one Civ. Maybe they get a bonus to Elephant Cavalry. Maybe they get a Unique elephant cavalry replacement.
So for example Elephant Archer is for everyone near an Elephant and a named Elephant Archer replacement is for Indians only.
Well, sure, but you aren't choosing to start near elephants or camels or horses. They're just thrown at you by the map generation. How does that increase choice or make it seem as though tech matters more?
 
Well, sure, but you aren't choosing to start near elephants or camels or horses. They're just thrown at you by the map generation. How does that increase choice or make it seem as though tech matters more?

Actually it's not related to the post subject it's just something that I remembered when somebody talked about it.

However, it would be interesting if the different cavalry types came from different technologies. So you need particular techs to be able to build Camps Vs Pastures on Elephants Vs Horses right?

Therefore if you're close to both then you have to choose which tech you want for which cavalry you want locally.

But then you can skip the tech and just import the animal if you wish.

Presumably each animal has different benefits too, so getting Camels might give you a passive trade bonus and so on.
 
Back
Top Bottom