The logic behind resources bonuses

[noto2]

hey nfw, all we said was that we are glad Civ 4 doesn't try to represent real life, with some civs not being able to progress at the rate of others. In this game if you play the Maya you can out-tech the Spanish, it's possible, but if the game mimicked real life then it would be impossible, and thus not fun. Are you finding this difficult to understand? I don't think anyone else has a problem with that, can we move on now?

 

[calibur]

An early rush can let you snowball your rivals, should I refrain from doing so?



Ahh yeah, no **** sherlock. That's the point, you try and create a power imbalance and then fully exploit it. Or what? If I get a good start I should handicap myself? Or if I find some primitive screwheads I shouldn't curbstomp them (further) back into the stone age?



Because there's a difference between creating the imbalance from a random start, and having it be imbalanced to begin with? Evidently, playing well is cheating, or amoral, or something.

Didn't you read me? I said based upon play. You're advocating a possible extreme imbalance from before you make a move, theoretically even between players.

 

[nfw]

Didn't you read me? I said based upon play. You're advocating a possible extreme imbalance from before you make a move, theoretically even between players.

You are the one that need to learn to read and comprehend. When did I advocate that?

 

[nfw]

hey nfw, all we said was that we are glad Civ 4 doesn't try to represent real life, with some civs not being able to progress at the rate of others. In this game if you play the Maya you can out-tech the Spanish, it's possible, but if the game mimicked real life then it would be impossible, and thus not fun. Are you finding this difficult to understand? I don't think anyone else has a problem with that, can we move on now?

That's strange, I never wrote anything about mirroring real life in this thread? All I have wrote, is the game shouldn't prevent snowballing, as was suggested in post #16.

 

[calibur]

@nfw: why? Although civ games might have runaway civs, it's not nearly as imbalanced as real life. If you were to try to base a saved game on history you would have to have the British with factories, coal plants, and something in between a red coat and modern infantry, as well as destroyers, when India and China are still using medieval units like chokonus and galleons, and the native Americans would be using bronze age units. It would be realistic, but it wouldn't be very fun

Agreed. Games would be pointless, because the winner would always be the one who historically won (with a few EXTREMELY notable exceptions, like the American Revolution: it's shocking how incredibly CLOSE that victory was).

Ah, I see the problem. Let me explain. Of course we as players try to become as strong as possible; we want to win. But the game should provide us with a fair chance to do so - it doesn't make us play 1,000 turns of not developing Agriculture because it makes no sense in the terrain we started in and then getting curb stomped by Europeans - and with a challenging game when we do try it, so equally we never turn up after discovering Astronomy to find aborigines who can simply be murdered for their land (given that a Civ player empire is typically completely amoral).

You objected to the points made here. Ergo, you dislike a challenge. Then, after I specifically said that victory should be based on gameplay, shown

As I see it, he wants, as most do, that the game be relatively balanced, and that game-play decides who wins more so than starting position, though that's obviously a major factor.

(which I agree with, and which is what you're fighting)

You proceed to use arguments of gameplay against me

An early rush can let you snowball your rivals, should I refrain from doing so?
Ahh yeah, no **** sherlock. That's the point, you try and create a power imbalance and then fully exploit it. Or what? If I get a good start I should handicap myself? Or if I find some primitive screwheads I shouldn't curbstomp them (further) back into the stone age?
Because there's a difference between creating the imbalance from a random start, and having it be imbalanced to begin with? Evidently, playing well is cheating, or amoral, or something.

Put this way: Does it feel just as good winning in chess if your opponent starts without a queen or knights?

 

[nfw]

You objected to the points made here. Ergo, you dislike a challenge. Then, after I specifically said that victory should be based on gameplay, shown
(which I agree with, and which is what you're fighting)

I object to his point because that's how conquest/domination victories are won, by snowballing over your opponents. Do you even play this game?

Take a look at the attachment, I just took most of Joao's cities, shall I return them to him so to make the game artificially more challenging?

You proceed to use arguments of gameplay against me

Much unlike yourself.

Put this way: Does it feel just as good winning in chess if your opponent starts without a queen or knights?

Except AI actually begins with higher bonus than me, so what's your point again?
Except the maps are random, so what's your point again?

 

[calibur]

I object to his point because that's how conquest/domination victories are won, by snowballing over your opponents. Do you even play this game?

By snowballing over your opponents through your actions, not through some roll of a dice. Chance should always be a factor, but only rarely the deciding factor.

Take a look at the attachment, I just took most of Joao's cities, shall I return them to him so to make the game artificially more challenging?

No. Again, you won those through gameplay.

Much unlike yourself.

How so?
It seems you, here are using ad hominem, in that you are using a semi-personal comment with little argumentative value instead of an actual counterargument. I was merely pointing out that your attempts at counterargument were concurring with one of the poitns you were trying to argue.

Except AI actually begins with higher bonus than me, so what's your point again?
Except the maps are random, so what's your point again?

That higher bonus is compensating for their employment of already-worse tactics, so that cancels out.
The randomness could just as easily favor them, yes, that's irrelevant. If it does favor an opponent, would it be fair if they won, or got to a position where they were easily able to, almost solely because of that?

 

[AdamCrock]

Berlin has academy ? , Lisbon -> military/production city ?, max pop 7 so far (munich has potential), 5 conquered cities (trade routes insufficient), clearly not going for culture, pre astronomy. Too little (original) cities for Oxford/Wall street. map size standard ? What's the plan ? total annihilation ? ^^

 

[kolhite]

Isn't that the point? Or do you try and become the weakest civ in your game?

You are misunderstanding the entire discussion. You seem to believe that the argument has something to do with this question: "Should I or should I not exploit some advantage when I play this game?"

The discussion is actually about the design of the game. You are responding to it as though it were a discussion about how you should play the game. Hence your non-sequitir introduction of morality into this discussion.

The argument is that the game should not reflect the actual discrepancy in power between historical civilizations. If the game (not you as a player) did so, it would not be fun. For instance, if the in-game civ America had as a civilization trait a hundredfold production advantage over, say, the Aztecs, this might reflect reality better than the in-game parity between the two civilizations (or, in fact, advantage to the Aztecs), but it would not be fun.

Anyways, beyond that, I'd be surprised (I am making an inference here based on your argumentative style and the content of your posts) if you weren't reacting against something you perceive as 'political correctness' in this thread. If so, the irony of this is pretty delightful, and a superb illustration of the reaction against an ideology becoming more ideologically blind than the ideology itself.

 

[nfw]

You are misunderstanding the entire discussion. You seem to believe that the argument has something to do with this question: "Should I or should I not exploit some advantage when I play this game?"

Yet another person who don't bother to read this thread.

The discussion is actually about the design of the game. You are responding to it as though it were a discussion about how you should play the game. Hence your non-sequitir introduction of morality into this discussion.

Exhibit A: when did I delve into morality?

The argument is that the game should not reflect the actual discrepancy in power between historical civilizations. If the game (not you as a player) did so, it would not be fun. For instance, if the in-game civ America had as a civilization trait a hundredfold production advantage over, say, the Aztecs, this might reflect reality better than the in-game parity between the two civilizations (or, in fact, advantage to the Aztecs), but it would not be fun.

Exhibit B: when did I brought real life into this?

Anyways, beyond that, I'd be surprised (I am making an inference here based on your argumentative style and the content of your posts) if you weren't reacting against something you perceive as 'political correctness' in this thread. If so, the irony of this is pretty delightful, and a superb illustration of the reaction against an ideology becoming more ideologically blind than the ideology itself.

And now a personal attack. How about you try and answer the question, why shouldn't I press on my advantage in game to snowball my opponent, as opposed to what was suggested in post #16.

 

[nfw]

By snowballing over your opponents through your actions, not through some roll of a dice. Chance should always be a factor, but only rarely the deciding factor.

Again, do you even play the game? The start is a roll of a dice, every attack is a roll of a dice, diplomacy is a roll of a dice

No. Again, you won those through gameplay.

So what exact is your problem again?

How so?
It seems you, here are using ad hominem, in that you are using a semi-personal comment with little argumentative value instead of an actual counterargument. I was merely pointing out that your attempts at counterargument were concurring with one of the poitns you were trying to argue.

Because I wanted to know why should the game prevent snowballing, yet you and your ilk kept bringing real life into the discussion.

That higher bonus is compensating for their employment of already-worse tactics, so that cancels out.
The randomness could just as easily favor them, yes, that's irrelevant. If it does favor an opponent, would it be fair if they won, or got to a position where they were easily able to, almost solely because of that?

Fairness is irrelevant in a single player game. By your logic, if I rolled a really terrible start, I should WB myself in a bunch stuff to compensate to make it fair?!

 

[calibur]

Exhibit A: when did I delve into morality?

So if I find a barbarian village on some island, (though the aborigines would be more akin to tribal villages) I should not take it so not to hurt the feeling of imaginary people?

Exhibit B: when did I brought real life into this?

He never said you did, you merely responded in the Brits vs. Aborigines thing.

And now a personal attack. How about you try and answer the question, why shouldn't I press on my advantage in game to snowball my opponent, as opposed to what was suggested in post #16.

We're not sayign you shouldn't, we're just saying that that advantage you press upon shouldn't have been decided before you made a single move.

Again, do you even play the game? The start is a roll of a dice, every attack is a roll of a dice, diplomacy is a roll of a dice

Yes, but that roll of the dice isn't the deciding factor, or shouldn't be. You can still lose, even with every roll of the dice in your favor, so you should be able to win even with nearly every roll against you.

So what exact is your problem again?

Victory should be based upon gameplay, not a random start before you made a move.

Because I wanted to know why should the game prevent snowballing, yet you and your ilk kept bringing real life into the discussion.

We're drawing parallels to make a point. The victory, 'snowballing' if you will, of the west IRL was the product of geography. It should not be so in the game.

Fairness is irrelevant in a single player game. By your logic, if I rolled a really terrible start, I should WB myself in a bunch stuff to compensate to make it fair?!

No, we're all saying that the game shouldn't make it so that the terrible start will completely ruin the game. You should be able to come back from that.

 

[nfw]

He never said you did, you merely responded in the Brits vs. Aborigines thing.

Huh?
[quoto=kholite]Hence your non-sequitir introduction of morality into this discussion. [/quote]

Not only does he thinks I cared about morality in a computer game, he thinks I started it.

We're not sayign you shouldn't, we're just saying that that advantage you press upon shouldn't have been decided before you made a single move.

Victory should be based upon gameplay, not a random start before you made a move.

And I never said there should be, so I still can't see why you are arguing that point. You seem to be very confused.

Yes, but that roll of the dice isn't the deciding factor, or shouldn't be. You can still lose, even with every roll of the dice in your favor, so you should be able to win even with nearly every roll against you.

We're drawing parallels to make a point. The victory, 'snowballing' if you will, of the west IRL was the product of geography. It should not be so in the game.

I'm going to disagree, there's few if any natural resources unique to Europe. But this has nothing to do with the game.

 

[calibur]

Huh?
[quoto=kholite]Hence your non-sequitir introduction of morality into this discussion.

Not only does he thinks I cared about morality in a computer game, he thinks I started it.

He never said you cared, but I just showed that you did in fact introduce morality into the discussion.

And I never said there should be, so I still can't see why you are arguing that point. You seem to be very confused.

You...

Because there's a difference between creating the imbalance from a random start, and having it be imbalanced to begin with? Evidently, playing well is cheating, or amoral, or something.

I'm going to disagree, there's few if any natural resources unique to Europe. But this has nothing to do with the game.

There are other geographic (not to mention political) factors involved in real life. Basically, they became superior to the rest of the old world when the ottomans made trade with China too expensive, inciting them to search for alternatives, leading them to easily-conquerable and wealth-providing lands around the world. They had easier access to the Americas than China or the Ottomans.

The relation with the game is that we don't want that to happen in the game, the Brits vs. the Aborigines.

 

[noto2]

I'm just going to make a wild guess that english is not the native language of everyone in this thread. I get the distj cut feeling that his is not a dialogue because people aren't actually responding to each other. Nfw, I can understand everyone else but I admit your pos confuse me. Why are you talking about gameplay? We were talking about game balance with the terrain and resources.

 

[reddishrecue]

Irrigation farms give more food.

 

[nfw]

He never said you cared, but I just showed that you did in fact introduce morality into the discussion.

Here, let me quote what was written, not by me:

Ah, I see the problem. Let me explain. Of course we as players try to become as strong as possible; we want to win. But the game should provide us with a fair chance to do so - it doesn't make us play 1,000 turns of not developing Agriculture because it makes no sense in the terrain we started in and then getting curb stomped by Europeans - and with a challenging game when we do try it, so equally we never turn up after discovering Astronomy to find aborigines who can simply be murdered for their land (given that a Civ player empire is typically completely amoral).

You still think I introduced morality into this thread?

The relation with the game is that we don't want that to happen in the game, the Brits vs. the Aborigines.

Oh ok, so once I have rifles and there's some barb city sitting on a couple of key resources, I should just leave it alone?! I'm beginning to think you are ********.

 

[calibur]

Here, let me quote what was written, not by me:


You still think I introduced morality into this thread?

That statement had nothing to do with morality, it was to do with a balanced challenge of gameplay

Oh ok, so once I have rifles and there's some barb city sitting on a couple of key resources, I should just leave it alone?! I'm beginning to think you are ********.

*Ad Hominem*
No, what we're sayign is that the game should give you as mu balanced challenge as possible, the civilizations in the game from the start should be relatively equal, until gameplay decisions start having major effects. Something to that effect, anyways. Barb cities are a non-factor in this conversation, and the brits v. abo thing was just a convenient comparison.

 

[nfw]

That statement had nothing to do with morality, it was to do with a balanced challenge of gameplay

Did you read the bolded sentence? Do you know what the word murder implies?

*Ad Hominem*

No it's a statement of fact.

No, what we're sayign is that the game should give you as mu balanced challenge as possible, the civilizations in the game from the start should be relatively equal, until gameplay decisions start having major effects. Something to that effect, anyways. Barb cities are a non-factor in this conversation, and the brits v. abo thing was just a convenient comparison.

As soon as you press end turn the first time the civs start to diverge in power, so your argument is a complete non starter.
In every game one civ becomes the runaway civ.

 

[noto2]

Oh ho cares anymore, either he can't read or he's trolling. Dont feed the trolls