the "compounded interest time constant problem"

rysingsun

King
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
959
this is a problem thats been irritating me for a long time and im finally ready to talk about the need to change it.

civilization and most games like it have long periods where empires experience something called "exponential growth". simply put this means their size doubles after X turns. and it does so repeatedly. the secret to winning is reducing the size of X to the smallest number possible. for example if i can double every 20 turns then after 200 turns i will achieve 1024 times my original size. but if i can double every 18 turns then i will achieve over 2000 times my original size in the same number of turns. this means that when all the civs run out of space and this doubling phenomenon comes to an end the player who can get that doubling time from 20 turns down to 18 turns will have twice the empire size. this is THE reason why micromanaging early in the game is so powerful. and it is the reason why painstaking calculations on efficiency to reduce that doubling time pays such big dividends.

but it gets worse ...

early wars do not pay for themselves unless low corruption territory can be acquired by way of them.

so when we play on deity to say nothing of sid level we go out of our way to avoid unnecessary wars. they play havoc with the doubling times. i had the intention of giving up the game (still do) and i decided i wanted one last great game on huge level with a militaristic civ on deity level. i got off to a very poorly played start so my "doubling time" was maybe 25 turns instead of the oh-so-important goal of 20. this left me at a quarter the size i should have been at.i was almost an entire age behind in tech. i was fortunate to be able to move into a great giant jungle that the ai ignored to eventually catch up in empire size. i won the game but i did so by having no military whatsoever for the duration of 2 ENTIRE AGES. you would have laughed to see me build 80 artillery when they were the ONLY military units i had because i couldnt spare the change to acquire either iron or saltpeter at that time. i refused to draft riflemen because i was not willing to pay the support cost. i was so desparate to catch up in tech that i repeatedly sold off my only horses every time the 20 turns came up. the gambit paid off. i reduced my doubling time enough to eventually catch up until i got my modern units and then i tromped over everybody in about 45 turns.

but that's not the game i want to play!

why should i play 250 turns of hoping hoping hoping the ai will ignore my undefended empire? you know very well i won that game by luck. i was lucky they ignored me although to be sure i made much of diplomacy to maximize the chances of that. but i had to do it. i had to get my doubling time down. and this ALWAYS is a problem on games like civ when played at the highest levels.

how many of you were experts at civ II? how many of you could turn the entire world to grass in under 300 years on deity or lauch a spaceship in 220 turns? how many of you learned to double your gold intake every 13 turns for a stretch of 130 turns to go from 50gpt to 50000gpt? how many of you could rush production on every one of your 254 cities and have so much gold left over that the game truncated it back down to 30000gold in the interturn? for those who think im boasting i will say this much. this was easier to do in civ II than to win a deity game of civ III. i am absolutely impressed with the community here for teaching so many players absolutely immaculate playstyle that we have so many deity players here. its not easy folks.

but i dont like the method required of us. it keeps coming down to the same old thing. i have to play each turn doing nothing but producing infrastructure, rushing marketplaces, working my workers flawlessly counting squares religiously to place my cities, switching my cities between food and shields to shave off a turn on my settler production calculating the placement of my fp with much care and checking the diplomacy window every single turn to get the best deals i absolutely can going back and forth and back and forth between the ai as i do so just because i want to change my doubling time from 20 turns to 18 turns. all the while i use every trick in the book for playing the ai against each other. the art of destroying ai reputations i take to shameless levels. i consider rop rape childs play compared to the tricks i pull on the ai but curiously i avoid that exploit in particular because it has been declared taboo. and i do it all for one purpose. to increase their doubling time.

and i get cheated out of the fun of early wars which screw massively with my own doubling time.

if you havent figured it out yet this is a rant on the whole exponential empire growth concept. we need an alternative.

as a postscript to all this: if you havent detected it yet civ III to me requires every braincell ive got for stretches of up to 80 hours. its extremely taxing on the brain to me and i go to work with my brain absolutely fried from it. it is a large part of the reason im preparing to disband my computer. i will continue to lurk about the boards off and on from other people's computers at least for a while.

as a second postscript: ive never participated on a board like this one that has such a great bunch of people posting.
 
It's way passed my bedtime, but I've gotta say this is one of the most thorough analyses of a fundamental problem in the Civilization series.

There IS an alternative to rewarding the competitor who can find the best way to shrink their doubling time. If you want it.
 
Its also past MY bedtime, but I concur with DH_Epic. There IS a way to make victory in the game a much deeper and thought provoking excersise than it currently is.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Well, that is indeed a flaw in Civ 3. However if you find playing on Deity level such a chore and brain-exhausting for you, maybe you should consider playing on easier levels.
 
Rohili, it seems you missed his point.
If I understand him correctly, it is not the challenge causing the freezed brain, but the available means to master that challenge. And to that I have to agree to a certain level.

As I feel it, Civ3 was optimized (maybe developed) for a game upto emperor level and to be played on standard map with 8 opponents.
Unfortunately, there seems to be at least a measurable minority of players who would like to have huge and 'uber-huge' maps with much more opponents.
But, for those conditions the set-up of the game if far from being optimal. You face a just crazy corruption in case of a wide-spread empire, the engine is almost each time re-adjusting your worked tiles in case of new pop coming up and so on and so on.
To cope with this, you have to do a lot of more than just tedious things. And you have to do it over and over again, for always the same cities again.
Without going into details, there is almost no optimization feature build in, making it necessary to adjust each bit of the game by yourself. Once again, managing 10 cities, this may be fun. Managing 30+ cities, it is far beyond the borders of boredom.

The advise just to play on standard maps doesn't help very much, as for many then it is not the game they want to play.
 
When the solution to a game play problem is "just don't play that way", you're neglecting a huge opportunity to actually IMPROVE the game.

Why are the most important challenges at the high levels those of micromanagement efficiency?
 
Why are the most important challenges at the high levels those of micromanagement efficiency?

I'd like to see an AI that gets smarter the higher level you play at, but it's not reasonable to think that that's going to happen anytime soon. I hope there would be a way that to not make micromanagment the only way to defeat the AI's bonuses, but I can't come up with any ideas to do it. There will hopefully be more interesting if the multiplayer is implemented in a good way, which would let you play real intelligence, but otherwise the best thing to get away from defeating the AI by micromanagment is to have discipline not to micromanage too much, use the automated workers and so on, and play at an easier level. That way strategy plays a greater role....

I hope I understood the problem right. I don't mean this to be "just don't play that way", hopefully there's a better solution but I wonder if this problem won't just carry over to civ4.
 
Well I think part of the problem is the nearly pure economic nature of the game. more diplomacy/cultural importance should be included.

Another (as has been mentioned before) is the lack of 'carry over' in production/research/worker actions (for research its not so bad you have to adjust it, at Most, every 4 turns..for production it can be once per turn per city)

Another is the inability to issue Mass commands (ie all these cities put factories in the top of your queue, or autobuy all improvements in these cities)

Unfortunately, as Loppan pointed out, difficulty levels involving AI intelligence aren't likely (because that means they'd have to spend their time making a stupider AI than the best they could, as well as the best they could) so bonuses are likely to continue (especially at the highest levels, when Humans surpass any game AI)

for more interesting early wars, making the map more crowded would be an interesting option (see 'minor civs') and there are other methods of reigning in snowball (besides just making extra cities worthless)... one possible tradeoff I'd like to see is for speed v. stability


On a side note, one possible way to improve diplomacy would be to abstract it a bit. You give general orders to your diplomats about what is important to you, and how important it is to get a deal, and with who... every turn your diplomats get together each of the other empires and attempt to make a deal (the more you want something the more you Will end up paying for it.. but the more likely your diplomats will actually be able to get it for you)... This could allow 'diplomatic skill' techs/society choices to be important.
 
The opposite of micromanagement is high level strategic thinking. If you simplify micromanagement, high level strategy matters more. And if you make high level strategy more important, than minor micromanagement doesn't help you as much.

In a game where high level strategic thinking is more important than micromanagement, being able to produce faster would matter less than knowing what your opponent is up to. In fact, if you wanted to make an AI cheat, you wouldn't need to make him produce twice as fast as you, but give him the benefit of knowing your intelligence, what choices you are making, and so forth.

But in a game without choices, a game where it's essentially a race, the AI's only responsibility is to go faster than the player.

Sacrifice intelligence for speed.
 
dh_epic said:
The opposite of micromanagement is high level strategic thinking. If you simplify micromanagement, high level strategy matters more.

The Civ3 AI pulls its punches. That's a fact.

I think this is good up to a point. How much fun would Deity be to play if the AI picked on the weak instead of the strong? Deity would have to be reworked completely.

Civ3 had a great run. Some of the holes that are possible to dig out of, solely because it is so easy to avoid unwanted wars at high difficulty, have been hugely entertaining. See the Sid Vicious 7 SG (still wrapping up) for the ultimate in terms of digging out of a hole.

I agree with dh_epic, though. While cool, that kind of game has run its course and I hope Civ4 will take off the gloves. If the AI chose its targets differently and players couldn't "hide under the radar" then we wouldn't NEED to be put into such a deep hole in search of a challenge, ANY challenge. If the AI played a bit differently, it could be quite challenging without needing all those outrageous bonuses.

The Civ1 and Civ2 AIs were incompetent at the economic side of the game. They didn't expand, so it was very easy to outexpand the whole lot of them. Even all the AIs vs the lone player was often a mismatch. Civ3's AI is gloriously competent at expansion. It's the thing it does best, spreading out like roaches, especially when given free settlers to start. But it's a babe in arms at the diplomatic table.

Can Civ4's AI be stronger? Who knows. ;) One can always hope, right? :mischief:


- Sirian
 
I definitely believe that you can only close the micromanagement gap so far. You can only remove so many tricks like lowering your science rate on the last turn of research, or the RoP rape.

There's still an end remainder. You still left with the AI's fast and perfect calculations versus the human's holistic problem solving. And if the human manages to combine their natural God given problem solving skills with constant tedious calculation, they'll always beat the AI.

Which is why Civilization should strive for challenges that don't revolve around mathematics, but in CONFLICTS that revolve around choice. Mathematics can be optimized. But if a choice is sometimes good and sometimes bad, depending on what your opponent is doing, you can't always pull out your calculator.

Not to mention that if a guy is busy trying to double his empire size in 19 turns instead of 20, he'll miss the big picture and get trounced on.

That's the game I'd like to play.
 
do not forget that the tedium of micromanaging was only half the problem. the other half was the absence of military action for most of the game. in the game i talked about i think i spent something like 250 or 260 turns or something with no military action whatsoever. it was out of necessity but it is booooring. for me it seems like its always necessary. and likewise once i mastered civ II i never fought anyone before becoming so powerful that it was like swatting flies.

the thing in civ III though that drives me crazy is that if i get 250 turns ... lets say just when im starting to build my military .. if the ai invades me he could have me toasted in a few turns and ive now wasted lets say 20-30 hours of micromanaging only to watch the game go down the sewer. who wouldnt want to put his fist through the wall? is it a wonder people reload? but if i kept a skeleton military the whole game i would have watched my game down the sewer as someone else built the united nations because i was too slow. either way 250 turns of "the boring (but taxing) prep stuff" when i have no idea whether i will even get to try the "romp-and-stomp" just doesnt seem like the optimum setup we could have.
 
Commander Bello said:
Rohili, it seems you missed his point.
If I understand him correctly, it is not the challenge causing the freezed brain, but the available means to master that challenge. And to that I have to agree to a certain level.
Yes, as I agreed that is a flaw in the gameplay and should be improved in the nest Civ instalment. I was just saying that in the meantime, he probably shouldn't force himself to play on that difficulty level if it is too demanding. Frequently some people (I'm not saying all) force themselves to play harder levels just for the sake of achievement when in fact they derive no enjoyment while doing so.
rysingsun said:
the other half was the absence of military action for most of the game. in the game i talked about i think i spent something like 250 or 260 turns or something with no military action whatsoever.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Civ 3 is not about war all the time. In fact, I have more periods of peace than of war. I'm sure the designers did not mean for war to be the total emphasis of the game either.

If you prefer a more hardcore warmongers game I'm sure there are many out there which suit your tastes.
 
yeah i played an emperor level game recently and 2/3 of the way through it i stopped to start the game i just talked about. i guess im one of those people you talked about who always have to prove myself by doing the hardest thing possible. i like deity because i really enjoy the military endgame a lot. i dont like the stress of 30 hours of prep-work worrying the whole time that ill get squashed like a bug 29 hours into my game.

as for finding another game ... i havent found one i like. civ III is an absolutely awesome game. if i didnt like it i wouldnt trouble myself to take the time to muse on improvements to it. i am actually quite fascinated at the depth of strategy in it.
 
That's where I'm coming from too, rysingsun. I offer criticisms not because I hate it but because it's one of my favorite games. I criticize it not because it's so far off from the ideal, but because it's so damn close.

At any rate, if there were a greater variety of balanced high level strategies, you wouldn't have to leverage the micro as much.
 
Back
Top Bottom