the early game is the most fun.

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, to elaborate, a player might still select which Victories he wants to trigger an end to the game-be it Time, Domination, Culture etc etc. Under this system, though, when that condition is met, everyones points will be tallied up to see who got what place in each Victory Type, and who got what place overall.
So, as an example, you might lose the Space Victory which triggers the end of the game, but your pursuit of Peacekeeping missions, UN resolutions and global trade ensure that you get first place in the Diplomatic and Economic victories. This might then be sufficient to get you overall victory, even though you didn't achieve the victory which ended the game. Does that make sense?

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[magfo]

The problem, as I see it, is this:

Early in the game you CARE. Every unit is your own son. Every city is your chance to build Utopia. So you plan. And you move, and you place and you take care. If that promoted lvl 4 guy gets killed in a 95% battle, you tear your hair. If you discover horses close to a city, celebration.

In the end of the game you don't. In the end of the game you have 1002 tanks that all are lvl3. You have a hundred cities that are ALL the same. Every one has 20 squares of cultivated land - most of which are looking IDENTICAL. Sure, one city has more hammers, one has more commerce. Big deal. Your capital sure has a lot of culture, but who cares, since you can't tell that is has a lot of covered terrain due to overlapping.

THAT's the problem. Everything turns out to be the same in the end. It doesn't really matter what you build where and why. One troop is more or less equal to another. Sure, that lvl 5/6 guy is nice to attack with, but does it matter, since the attack will be done with 15 tanks?

Make it so that there's more punishments late in the game. All civs should NOT be able to afford big armies. Cutting down ALL the forests should make people angry. Imagine the earth without no natural forests at all. That's what you get in Civ - every time. Make deforestation cause the planet to warm up or just cause deserts. Make large armies cost a LOT, especially if you go to war. Make religions count. No matter that it's not your state religion, you still have tons of millions of christians/jews/muslims/buddhists etc which are going to war against others of the same faith. Give penealties to civs that attack civs that have the same faith. If you want to get rid of it - you need to lessen the number of people who follow faiths and thus removing shrines etc.

Also, I miss an old Civ feature: When I conquer a civilization that has technologies that I *don't*, then I ought to get them when I conquer their cities. Now a leader won't give away a tech no matter what.

 

[Skirmisher]

Another thing. When you take the lead, the AI should gang up on you.

This is only in line with history. The European balance of power system meant that everyone ganged up on the French in the 19th century, the Germans in the 20th, and the Russians in the late 20th to the present 21st.

A major diplomatic penalty for being in the lead should be implemented.

 

[magfo]

Also (more ecological stuff):

Somewhere along the tech-tree you should be able to terraform deserts. Give us more changing environment. With some (future?) tech you should be able to irrigate and work desert tiles. I mean, after all it's not hard to do, just a question of water supply. Add some features like that, and you'll keep discovering new things as you go along.

Why not a "tax" on roads? In real life it's VERY costly to maintain roads (at least in some climates). In civ you build some roads at 3000BC and use them until RR in the 20th century. That would lessen the effect we see with roads on EVERY available square. Bring back the old way and let roads add +1gc. But then they also will suffer from the losses you get from maitenance and corruption. Thus you will eventually lose a little by building too many roads.

 

[onedreamer]

I don't think the early game is the most fun. It depends on the game. Early game is funnier not because of units or number of units but because of the unknown factor. You discover the lands, resources, neighboring civs. You look at the spread of religions, forming of alliances and enemies, deciding which tech path to take, the strategy etc. All these elements decay with time and in the modern era they are almost all gone, but a new element comes in, the rush for victory, which is interesting enough IMO. However there are games where you're either too far behind or so far ahead that this rush for victory isn't involving or exciting enough.
I don't understand the complaints vs modern units: there are more than in the early game. Why are submarines, destroyers, battleships, AEGIS, carriers useless ? I don't think that a Galley or Caravel can be more useful than these, and at least I can count minimum 4 classes or naval units in the modern era vs 2 before industrial era. I actually seldom build naval units before Combustion. There is air combat that is non existant before modern era. There are railroads and as many diff. unit types as in the early stages...

 

[Charles 22]

Another thing. When you take the lead, the AI should gang up on you.

This is only in line with history. The European balance of power system meant that everyone ganged up on the French in the 19th century, the Germans in the 20th, and the Russians in the late 20th to the present 21st.

A major diplomatic penalty for being in the lead should be implemented.

No, that's pretty inaccurate. The only reason some of those relatively top dogs got multiple nations ganging against them was because they started it and had warlike intentions. The USSR, for example, wasn't the nice guys on the block, but they didn't start WWII either and if it hadn't been for Germany starting it the USSR probably would have got around to it, but since they spent their whole time fighting Germany and later Japan, there wasn't much interest in people ganging up on them (same goes for the USA).

Besides, when has anyone ganged up on the USSR since WWII? She's had nations "cold" to her, but certainly none have engaged her in anything but abstract ways such as Vietnam and such. Nobody has as much as crossed her borders, let alone a host of nations.

 

[Charles 22]

I don't think the early game is the most fun. It depends on the game. Early game is funnier not because of units or number of units but because of the unknown factor. You discover the lands, resources, neighboring civs. You look at the spread of religions, forming of alliances and enemies, deciding which tech path to take, the strategy etc. All these elements decay with time and in the modern era they are almost all gone, but a new element comes in, the rush for victory, which is interesting enough IMO. However there are games where you're either too far behind or so far ahead that this rush for victory isn't involving or exciting enough.
I don't understand the complaints vs modern units: there are more than in the early game. Why are submarines, destroyers, battleships, AEGIS, carriers useless ? I don't think that a Galley or Caravel can be more useful than these, and at least I can count minimum 4 classes or naval units in the modern era vs 2 before industrial era. I actually seldom build naval units before Combustion. There is air combat that is non existant before modern era. There are railroads and as many diff. unit types as in the early stages...

You got it, the modern era (WWII and beyond) is the place to fight. That's how I typically play my games, when I just play defensively up until that point, unless somebody really hacks me off, and then it's unleash the panzers, unleash the bombers. Bombers alone make the pillaging such a stupid tactic. I guess most people think it's weaker than in Civ3 because of there being less units than there used to be, but then again what era has so many naval units even so, and what era has any air units?

 

[Blueberry]

What I think is really sad about the late game, is that once you can build mech infantry, you no longer can build (at least to my knowlegde) regular infantry, marines and sam infantry. If you have a high developing rate, you don't have time to build a significant amount of sams and marines. It could be useful to have forces with their abilities and at least when they are cheaper than mechs. And it doesn't seem to be in accordance with the circumstances
in the world today. Does every infantry unit in the world have transport vehicles attached to them today? And in a great war today involving lots of fighting soldiers and heavy losses, it wouldn't in any case be possible to give fighting vehicles to all of the replacements. And why don't Civ4 have guerillas? What about Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan? Doesn't the Civ developers watch the news?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Having AI's gang up on you just because you are in the lead is utterly LAME-it was the one thing which consistently ruined my Civ2 experience. You get in the lead, and you face a 5-front war from the AI civs. In Civ3 they wen't too far in the other direction, by making AI's a complete walk-over. At least in Civ4 we have diplomatic relations based on common-sense factors, like shared values and prior acts of kindness-i.e. we now have genuine 'Power Blocs'. What is needed now is to BUILD on this solid foundation. PA's should probably be allowed earlier in the game, and I feel we need 2 extra levels of diplomatic sentiment-1 positive and 1 negative. We also need the UN to be a greater focus of the modern diplomatic game, and a possibility for smaller, non-competitive civs to be around in the modern age. Major civs can be on the 'Security Council' (which means they are eligable to put up UN resolutions), wheras minor civs can only vote on existing resolutions. The aim of the diplomatic game, therefore, would be to try and sway as many smaller nations to vote with you as possible. The UN should also allow for more resolutions (and not just 'positive' ones-why not a Slavery or Police State resolution?), in particular enforced 3rd party peace deals (and an ability to 'deploy peacekeepers!)
Most important, though, is that rather than having AI's gang up on you when you get ahead, getting ahead should instead make you more prone to INTERNAL difficulties-worker riots, religious sectarianism, military coups and ideological conflicts should be a possibility in ALL ages, but most especially in the later game.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[cfacosta]

I think one of the most overlooked factors is the game's power balance. This is nebulous, so I will explain...
The early game is the most fun, in general, because this is when the player knows that he must work hard to gain an advantage over the AI. It is a struggle to offset the AI bonuses, but it is a struggle that can still be won.
The late game, on the other hand, is almost always determined by the early game. If you are ahead, you will continue to dominate. If you are behind, there are very few ways that you can turn your situation around.
Obviously there are exeptions to everything, but this usually holds true. The end game simply does not allow enough room for "comebacks", both yours or the AI's.

 

[onedreamer]

I think one of the most overlooked factors is the game's power balance. This is nebulous, so I will explain...
The early game is the most fun, in general, because this is when the player knows that he must work hard to gain an advantage over the AI. It is a struggle to offset the AI bonuses, but it is a struggle that can still be won.
The late game, on the other hand, is almost always determined by the early game. If you are ahead, you will continue to dominate. If you are behind, there are very few ways that you can turn your situation around.
Obviously there are exeptions to everything, but this usually holds true. The end game simply does not allow enough room for "comebacks", both yours or the AI's.

I disagree because a situation where you are too far ahead or too far behind should be exceptions to the rule and not the other way around. If it's like this for you, it means that you play on a regular basis with a too high level or a too low level of difficulty. Most of my games I get to the end game where I have 2-3 opponents of my same level, although I must admit that my style of play kinda points in this direction, meaning that I don't try to win by 3960 BC and I don't spend hours on a spreadsheet in order to achieve a cultural victory 3 turns earlier than otherwise.

 

[onedreamer]

Another thing. When you take the lead, the AI should gang up on you.

This is only in line with history. The European balance of power system meant that everyone ganged up on the French in the 19th century, the Germans in the 20th, and the Russians in the late 20th to the present 21st.

This never happened. It was France to declare on the rest of Europe and it was Germany to do the same. If not directly, they took actions that would obviously lead to such a result.
Also, if you think that anyone in Europe ganged against Russia, you must clearly not be european... sadly the American anti-communist propaganda is as bad as the communist one.

 

[cfacosta]

I usually play on Emperor or Immortal...so the game is really determined by the time modern times roll around. The question here is what do you consider the "same level" opponent? Sure, I meet AI with the same land and "power" as me...but they are not at the same level. As the human player I know that I can break them with a concentrated military effort. The AI keeps no reserves and counterattacks in very bad forms. For an AI to be the same level they really need to have superior military tech...they need to be able to defeat your attacks cold. This means that they are also closer to the spacerace fake victory...especially given their production bonus. That is what I mean by the game being already determined by the modern era. Perhaps it is just a different way of interpreting relative power levels.
As far as the ganging up stuff, you are right that it is very simplistic...and oft in error to say that anyone ganged up against anyone else. May I add, courteously of course, that it is also in error to attach "American" to every derogatory historical comment. There was just as much anti-communist sentiment in Europe as there was in America.

 

[Holycannoli]

Aussie my only problem with that victory method is that the classic victories like cultural, domination etc just become "game-enders" instead of "victories". That victory itself would have to add so many points towards the "real" victory that it'd be very difficult to lose after achieving it. Otherwise what would be the point in achieving one vs playing the game all the way through unless you're just getting bored with the game and want to end it? It would also allow the person with the most points to choose when the game ends to help ensure his victory, since the losers won't want to achieve a game-ending victory yet because they have more points to gain. That could be good or bad...

But this is a good start to brainstorming a new victory point system.

Oh, this would also be a very complicated victory system for the AI to figure out

 

[GoldenWheels]

I do wish the modern era either lasted longer in proportion or simply was less of an open and shut case by then, as many people have already noted.

Half the time I am starting wars just to get to use all those fun toys like bombers and tanks, with no real purpose behind it.

It would be interesting if perhaps a heavier value and cost could be put upon tanks, bombers, etc, things that truly in real life are big investments compared to an infantryman. Attacking a city with a stack of axeman and cats for all intents purposes feels very similar to attacking a city with tanks and artillery...a higher cost and higher value for modern units would cut down on the EXTREME stack management towards the endgame and giving those units boosted stats (almost to uber units, but with MUCH less of them) could make battling with them much more enjoyable. JM2C.

 

[binhthuy71]

For me the early game is more engrossing because you have very little of everything. Let's say that you choose to go warmongering with a rush. That means that you're forgoing infrastructure in the hopes that it will be worth it later. You may "win" only to find that you have a fractious, thinly garrisoned empire subject to the depradations of opportunistic neighbors who have been building away while you were at war. You may even lose a number of your newly captured cities to culture flipping to adjacent civs.

Late game, your infrastructure is largely in place and warmongering is mostly a matter of making sure that your mega cities are cranking out more Modern Armor, Mech Infantry, Fighters, Bombers and Gunships than your enemy's. It's a slugfest. That's kind of fun sometimes but there's a sort of inevitability about it that makes me feel like a spectator.

The only answer I can think of to this point is a unit cap. The early game's low production creates a built in unit cap; you simply can't build that many that fast, particularly at the fringes of your empire, nor can you move them very quickly so war is a choice with other consequences. Late game, you can crank out any number of units and the mobility provided by Railroad + Airport means that you don't need as many defenders. A unit cap, possibly with the number to be selected as part of the game setup, might make the endgame a little more intriguing by making warfare more difficult both for the player(s) and/or the AI.

 

[Holycannoli]

Well binhthuy you also inadvertenly mentioned another big reason why (at least for me), the modern era is more boring. You mentioned virtually every modern-era unit available that's worth building. All that's missing is artillery and SAM infantry, not to mention the scrawny few naval units.

Modern era warfare is boring because that's all there is to choose from.

 

[Skirmisher]

This never happened. It was France to declare on the rest of Europe

No, after the European monarchs had threatened of serious consequences if France did not amend its ways and secure the royalty, then France declared war on Austria - not Europe per se. A number of coalitions was then created to curb French power.

But before the French revolution, France was clearly the dominant cultural, economic and military power on the continent.

and it was Germany to do the same. If not directly, they took actions that would obviously lead to such a result.

No, the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian Nationalist. Austria then demanded that Serbia should allow for Austrian police to enter, which Serbia denied triggering an Austrian invasion which triggered a Russian general mobilization, which in turn triggered a German attack on France to secure its back while it would then afterwards march on Russia to protect its Austrian allly.

Before that happened Germany was clearly the most powerful nation in terms of economy, culture and military. It had under Bismarck brought the weak prinicipalities together, and humiliated France in 1870.

Also, if you think that anyone in Europe ganged against Russia, you must clearly not be european... sadly the American anti-communist propaganda is as bad as the communist one.

I'm European, and spare me the condescension, please. Nato was created in 1949. The Warsaw pact in 1955. Cause and effect. At that time Russia was the strongets European Power politically, economically and some would argue culturally. Witness the strong support for communist parties in Western Europe in these years.

And did I ever say that these 'top dogs' took 'the lead' peacefully?

 

[Newbert]

I haven't tried it out yet, but would anyone say that the "revolutions" mod has done anything to address late-game malaise?

Also, I like Aussie Lurker's victory suggestions. Multiple victory types, including an overall category would make for a more interesting experience. You could even throw in a couple of gag awards to civs that fared poorly.

 

[Skirmisher]

Having AI's gang up on you just because you are in the lead is utterly LAME-it was the one thing which consistently ruined my Civ2 experience. You get in the lead, and you face a 5-front war from the AI civs. In Civ3 they wen't too far in the other direction, by making AI's a complete walk-over. At least in Civ4 we have diplomatic relations based on common-sense factors, like shared values and prior acts of kindness-i.e. we now have genuine 'Power Blocs'. .

One of the reasons you are in the lead on higher dificulty levels is because you have played aggressively in the start and taken territory from others.

Now, I have the feeling that the AIs just let you win. The most preposterous example is winning a cultural victory with only longbow men at my disposal, while the opponents had tanks.

That is not how a rational human player would react. A rational AI would seek to create coalitions and prevent you from winning.

Diplomacy is based on common sense? Sometimes, maybe. Was diplomacy prior to the First World War, or any war, based on common sense? No, it was based on attaining power.

In game terms it would make it yet one more thing to ponder, that if you take the lead you run the risk of raising the ire of your opponents.

"Most important, though, is that rather than having AI's gang up on you when you get ahead, getting ahead should instead make you more prone to INTERNAL difficulties-worker riots, religious sectarianism, military coups and ideological conflicts should be a possibility in ALL ages, but most especially in the later game.".

That is strange, because it is usually when nations are weak compared to other nations that they engage in Civil wars. For instance China 1944-49 was devestated by the Japanese occupation, yet there was a civil war. Russia, from 1917-1920 had a civil war following a devastating defeat by the Germans. At the time of the American Civil war, America was not a particularily strong power.

Of course sometimes nations will gang up on a weak power, like for instance Turkey after the First World war, but that should not mean that they can't gang up on a strong power too. And, during the Russian Revolution, most European nations, and the US and Japan sent expeditionary forces to help the pro- zar 'whites' gainst the Bolshevik 'reds'. So that is an example of nations ganging up on a weak power.

But this is where I do agree with you that there should be modern ideologies, i.e. The AI excuse for declaring war could be that you have fallen under the influence of an "evil" ideology.

BTW I cant get your mod to work. I've placed it in the Warlords mod folder, but it does not show. What am I doing wrong?