The Power of Great Wall

[lasombra1984]

Very nice screenshot
Babylon, Spain & Byzantium was destroyed by vendic arians

 

[plasmacannon]

3 civs destroyed by barbarians, nice.

I have had one destroyed, when I opened a goody hut and 3 warriors popped out.
I killed 2, and the 3rd went for the Inca and captured their unguarded city.

 

[lasombra1984]

And one more nice screenshot

 

[whats a navy]

Or you could play without events, decreasing the power of the Great Wall by 34.5%.

 

[lasombra1984]

Or you could play without events, decreasing the power of the Great Wall by 34.5%.

IMO events make game much more interesting

 

[plasmacannon]

IMO events make game much more interesting

Agreed.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

IMO events make game much more interesting

Agree.

I use the great wall, only if I see a LOT of barbs. And I mean a LOT.

 

[CornPlanter]

Really? The game is more interesting for you when building GW equals to destroying three opponents? Or when you yourself can suddenly lose the game even if you did everything right?

 

[Skwink]

If you do everything right, you won't lose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you do everything right, you won't lose.

The only possible explanation to this statement is that you are ignorant to the game mechanics.

With some starts/difficulties it is possible to play PERFECTLY and still lose. Events simply increase the frequency of that occurrence.

Actually the Aryans themselves can kill you. If they come at the earliest point allowed, you can easily die long before you can build the great wall, or anything more than a worker and part of a warrior.

If you're spewing obvious falsehoods like the quote it's clear you do not know how all of the events function. This argument has been done to death, and there is not a person in the world that has proved that certain events do not constitute fake difficulty and insta-loss. That's because they can't do it. You get hit by certain things at the wrong time, you simply lose.

 

[lasombra1984]

Really? The game is more interesting for you when building GW equals to destroying three opponents? Or when you yourself can suddenly lose the game even if you did everything right?

In these game I had not GW. When barbs came it was complete on 50%.
When 3 archers appeared in fogbusted area I simply moved 2 fogbusters to a capital and whipped a wall. 1 warrior died - 2 survived

There's also a lot of beneficial REs... And super beneficial also such as free GG/GM/GP, free GS/academy etc... Anyway REs bring life to a game..
A lot of REs in history changed balance.. Plague, slave revolts, sever storm that destroyed Armada & resqued England.

 

[civnoob13]

IMO events make game much more interesting

Agreed

I love doing the quests, even though the rewards are rubbish

 

[lasombra1984]

Agreed

I love doing the quests, even though the rewards are rubbish

Oh yes, I've forgot quests!
And... Reward is not rubbish...
When you've succed 9 Harbos quest for example you get +1 gold point... Minimum +9... It is awesome...
"Classical Literature" quest gives you +2 beakers/library total 18. Usually you have 100 beakers/turn that time... More comments?
"Knights" that get free Flanking 1...

 

[Mahi]

I think the quests are rubbish. They are hardly worth the time but I do agree that events make the game much more interesting. There may be some bad designed events but the events is what makes the game feel a little more like you are handling a real civilization. A civilization that doesn't encounter earthquakes, forest fires or floods, through its time, is not a "real civilization" in my eyes.

Take Russia or Pakistan right now for example:
Russia is experiencing forest fires right now that are polluting Moscow with poisonous smoke and the estimated damage costs is running up to 15 billion dollars.

Pakistan is experiencing the worst floods in their history right now that is causing 500,000 people to flee from their homes while 1,500 people are reported dead.

Random events should be a struggle to deal with IMO. Yes it sucks when it happens but a good civilization can shake it off and stand the test of time.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I agree the events quests make the game more interesting and varied. To me, it adds entertainment to the game. I usually leave them on. However, your overall odds of winning go down slightly with events on. Vedic Aryans can be game over before you even get started.

This is not to say that all games are winnable without quests. Some starts are lethal, with or without quests.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think the quests are rubbish. They are hardly worth the time but I do agree that events make the game much more interesting. There may be some bad designed events but the events is what makes the game feel a little more like you are handling a real civilization. A civilization that doesn't encounter earthquakes, forest fires or floods, through its time, is not a "real civilization" in my eyes.

Take Russia or Pakistan right now for example:
Russia is experiencing forest fires right now that are polluting Moscow with poisonous smoke and the estimated damage costs is running up to 15 billion dollars.

Pakistan is experiencing the worst floods in their history right now that is causing 500,000 people to flee from their homes while 1,500 people are reported dead.

Random events should be a struggle to deal with IMO. Yes it sucks when it happens but a good civilization can shake it off and stand the test of time.

Game balance > realism. Always. That's why leaders live 6000+ years and units never die of age. Nothing that is COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED by a player/civ should single-handedly decide the outcome of the game. Aryans are the most typical incidence of that with events, but not the only one.

Annoyance and help events like forge burned down or truffles are far less harmful and reasonable for inclusion in the game. Dying on turn 25-30 at random, having 10000+ hammers worth of units sink in the ocean w/o a battle, or forcibly declaring on a defensive pact alliance while giving them tanks and taking all the diplomatic penalties of the DoW are *not* examples of completely random occurrences that fit with this game.

 

[Jerrymander]

Nothing that is COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED by a player/civ should single-handedly decide the outcome of the game.

Map generation?

Arguably, it's not completely uncontrolled, but I suppose you could argue that it's not a part of gameplay.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Map generation?

Arguably, it's not completely uncontrolled, but I suppose you could argue that it's not a part of gameplay.

I routinely argue against ludicrously imbalanced starts, too. They are harder to program against than events, but the degree we see in civ IV is pretty bad.

When you have 7 civs in the world, each one should average ~14.3% land. A couple % variance is expected based on 1-2 cities going someone's way, but that's it. So why do we see one civ with 25% or more of the world's land, pre astronomy, without war? If someone is playing at a difficulty that would ordinarily be challenging to them, there is no way they're going to be able to beat a super AI which then takes a peace vassal or two for massive tech whoring and starts running away.

In extreme cases, I've seen AIs get over double the land they're supposed to get. It's usually a combination of "bass ackward ******** expansion from some douche" and "AI blocks off 15% of land with just its capitol and expands to take more", but seeing 30% land from an AI with only its own city names is ludicrous.

 

[Jerrymander]

In extreme cases, I've seen AIs get over double the land they're supposed to get. It's usually a combination of "bass ackward ******** expansion from some douche" and "AI blocks off 15% of land with just its capitol and expands to take more", but seeing 30% land from an AI with only its own city names is ludicrous.

*cough*Zara*cough*

 

[capnvonbaron]

*cough*Zara*cough*

*cough*Sury*cough cough*Chuckles*cough*Shaka