The Way We Play Multiplayer

[xienwolf]

Oops, I was forgetting that Recon & Mounted aren't the only ones who can get Mobility 2. In my mind if they have 2 legs and Mobility 2, you slap on Poisoned blades. Don't deal with Animals much

 

[Mesix]

Great information Bringa. Personally Im glad you took the time to write it. Just as you say the hero nerfing is required if you reduce the randomness (but I like the balcne as is in the main game). I really like your point on the academy though, I always use my first sage for that and that usually indicates that its not a very balanced option.

Im going to think about it, I think 10% may be to little, but 25% may be a good start.

Thanks again for posting, keep it coming. The kind of balance experience you get from playing multiple games at the same version has been hard to get on ffh (because we rev so frequently) so this is great feedback.

A suggestion would be to change the writing tech. Instead of giving a free GP to the first to research, give a free GP to everyone who researches it. Then it wont be a race. From my experience, the AI already builds an academy with their GP sage anyway. This way you could restore balance without nerfing the Academy.

 

[Mesix]

I don't think werewolves can be given poison blade: it works only on unitcombat_recon, and werewolves are all unitcombat_animal.

That also means that they can be captured pretty easily. (Too easily I think; they should be switched to unitcombat_beast, imho. Edit: I just made it that way in my modmod, since I was thinking about it and didn't want to forget. This also means they will be getting more promotions, and likely be more aggressive. I may make them slower to compensate)

I think that Ravenous Wearwolves are good as animals and should be easy to capture. Greater wearwolves may be more appropriate as beast units. Blooded wearwolves could go either way.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Randomness is not luck. There's an "unfairness" componant to combat by chance, but there's an additional level of strategy if you have to deal with uncertainty. Chess has no randomness; most other strategy games do, and it adds to the complexity.

 

[xienwolf]

You haven't played Chess against Perpentarch then. When you are about to promote a pawn and suddenly see a 3 Kilo hammer swinging at your face, you suddenly realize that things ARE a little bit random...

 

[Bringa]

Dear Sir, if you consult your dictionary of choice you will find that randomness is, in fact, luck. Or rather: it is that which allows luck to matter. Randomness necessitates different strategies; contingency plans etc. These aren't better or worse than strategies in a context that is less dependent on luck, but one thing can be said about them: they are much more short term and less complex. The less you can say about the effects of a decision, the fewer decisions you can involve in your plans. That is to say, if you know that THIS stack of yours will take City A and THAT stack of yours will defend City B, then you can plan to move units from City B to City A after the road is clear; if you have absolutely no idea who will own Cities A and B in three rounds from now, then you can make plans for that move, but you must also make plans for all other kinds of situations.

That is to say, if you pause and think for a moment you will find that randomness decreases the depth of complexity while increasing its breadth. Randomness encourages "playing by ear" since you can never tell with sufficient certainty how a war will progress. Predictability favors deep complexity, long term plans, meaningful chains of decisions. Randomness favors being prepared for any kind of situation, not risking decisive battles since their outcome cannot be predicted, etc. To me, a game which forces players to formulate long-term strategies and rewards them for taking well-calculated risks is much more interesting than the other alternative.
But, of course, all this is a question of taste and, as my erudite verbiage should have sufficiently demonstrated, intelligence. That is to say:

UR DUMB LOL AN IM RITE!!!!

 

[Mailbox]

That's a fairly tasteless post, as randomness is a different facet of the game compared to pure strategic planning. There's nothing wrong with liking your battles to be undetermined and having to prepare contingency plans in case something doesn't pan out exactly as predicted. Rote memorization isn't really that much fun to me. One of the signs of a good leader is to respond to unexpected outcomes as well as making long term plans, although I think that making Civilization more like chess is also a viable way to play.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them inferior or less intelligent. Some like a simulation with a chance to fail, some like a chess board with the pieces all set. Neither is inherently superior to the other, both reward planning, risk taking, and boldness, although to different degrees.

 

[xienwolf]

I do believe that Bringa's post was what one would call "tongue in cheeck" humor

 

[Bringa]

That's a fairly tasteless post

And you, Sir, are a fairly humorless person. I'd rather be tasteless than humorless.

 

[Mailbox]

And you, Sir, are a fairly humorless person. I'd rather be tasteless than humorless.

Isn't humor supposed to be funny? (I'm too used to posts like that being dead serious, maybe I'm just embittered in regards to the internet.)

 

[Tarquelne]

Randomness necessitates different strategies; contingency plans etc. These aren't better or worse than strategies in a context that is less dependent on luck, but one thing can be said about them: they are much more short term and less complex.

They're much more short term and less complex if you cannot adequately compensate for the element of chance. If you can, then they can be just as long term and will almost certainly become more complex as contingencies have to be handled.

Randomness makes planning harder. Too much randomness makes planning impossible. Short of that, though, it's just another factor that the planner has to take into account.

The less you can say about the effects of a decision, the fewer decisions you can involve in your plans.

Increasing the randomness doesn't mean you can "say" less. It means you must "say" more to account for the extra outcomes. Which leads us to...

That is to say, if you pause and think for a moment you will find that randomness decreases the depth of complexity while increasing its breadth.

Only if your time is limited or the extra possibilities generated are more than you can cope with. Multiplayer games quite often limit time in such a manner, but not always.

Predictability favors deep complexity, long term plans, meaningful chains of decisions.

Too much predictability, though, is counter-productive. When the situation is too transparent the "best" moves become obvious. Bluffing is a possibility, but too much predictability can lead to shallow, deterministic games.

So, IMO, at either extreme - too much or too little randomness - planning suffers. Too much and you can't plan. Too little and, if the game itself is either too small or too simple, the plans can't become very interesting.

Randomness favors being prepared for any kind of situation,

Yes.... Which in itself is a good thing, IMO.

not risking decisive battles since their outcome cannot be predicted, etc.

Apples and oranges. Players _can_ be bold even in the face of difficult-to-determine odds. There's even a maxim out there stating that boldness is generally useful. ("Fortune favors the bold."? Though I think that's really more about unexperienced people too often being too timid... when they aren't reckless.)

To me, a game which forces players to formulate long-term strategies and rewards them for taking well-calculated risks is much more interesting than the other alternative.

Me too. Of course...

UR DUMB LOL AN IM RITE!!!!

...I'm willing to accept the challenge of making long term strategies in the face of some randomness.... Not everyone is.

To summarize: As usual, "It depends." You need to look at the amount of randomness and how it relates to the rest of the game.

 

[TheJopa]

Isn't humor supposed to be funny? (I'm too used to posts like that being dead serious, maybe I'm just embittered in regards to the internet.)

Probably but we have really great community
@ Everyone!

About randomness, one has to walk a fine line between complete randomness and complete predictability. No randomness-no opportunity to adapt yourself to new situations and deal with whatever outcome happened, and that is a part of the fun. IMO Vanilla Civ4 has that balance set somewhere in the middle, but I would like it being moved one step further towards 'predictable'

 

[rief_s]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure (as in I just checked the 'pedia) the Baron starts with 3 speed. Also, the werewolves he summons are speed 2 units that turn into 3 speed units. All of which can get Mobility 2.

Baron and Werewolves are animal, so they won't get Commando. I agree to the suggestion to remove Commando from Mounted Unit too. But don't forget Archmage with Meteor range : 3 + 4. For Recon it could lose Mobility II or Commando, but not both.

 

[Vittra]

I play hotseat a bit with my friend because he doesn't own BtS yet, but does anybody know if there's a way to prevent it from zooming in every time the player focus changes? I prefer having it as zoomed out as possible (for the top-down like look), and having to zoom it out again every time it's my turn is getting pretty annoying.

 

[Darkheart]

Bringa

From the settings and changes you describe;- Resource heavy, low sea, less combat randomness, it sounds like both you and your friend play a similar Mahan type strategy. That is, one large central power/production center defended by fixed, clearly defined, battle lines, flanks and reserves, where strength, weight of numbers and rate of replacement is the key. In this scenario, combat randomness and high mobility hit and runs would certainly interfere with "the calculation".

I'm not saying that's wrong. It's perfectly valid and down to personal preference. I'd suggest that anyone who enjoys this style of game should at least try these settings. But please bear in mind that it's not the only way. Combat randomness cuts both ways and for those of us who enjoy a more Mao style of play, mobility, not strength, is the key. That single, undefended incense deep inside your borders could be the key!

"hit em where they ain't" :- General MacArthur, the Pacific War

 

[Bringa]

Darkheart: I've yet to see that kind of pattern emerge in one of our games. Our games tend to be very varied. Sometimes they're over after only 60 rounds in an early push, sometimes they go on for very long times. There are games where one of us has a huge capital that pushes out units and a few irrelevant outer cities, and there are games where both our empires grow in unpredictable ways for the whole game.

The problem I see with the "more Mao" kind of playing is that FFH's inventions run contrary to that style of play. Heroes have a lot of power, but they're unique. I've played a lot of FFH without "fair combat" (I know the name sucks, but we all know what I mean ;P) and the way it turned out in those games was usually that I took heroes with me on sorties but hardly ever used them--to use them in anything but a 95+ combat was suicidal. This practically removed the whole hero aspect from the game. I really didn't like that.

 

[[NWO]_Valis]

Just a cut in line: If you like a good strategy, planing and little to no randomness then I can only propose to you the game M.A.X. [I think it is abandon ware now and it runs on DosBox very well]

Comming back to the topic: Statistic is a very big branch of mathematics. Saying that randomness lowers the amount of planing is just wrong, it is just an other kind of planing. Ok, to much randomness is too much but as is has been said, it is a personal matter.

Chess is a game only because you are not able to know every possible combination and its outcome. If we knew that it stops to be a game and starts to be a nice looking pattern puzzle. => when they fit 'Beep Blue II' into a cell phone

 

[Bringa]

Valis, and chess is massively less complex than FFH. Even without any randomness at all, FFH would still be absolutely a valid game.

 

[TheJopa]

Another thing to consider is replayability. How many times can you play over and over without getting bored? Randomness helps here. One time you get event, next time you wont. Depending on how things turn out game will play differently.

And one more thing: Like it or not randomness cant be removed. 'No randomness at all' is by far impossible. On the very beginning map is RANDOM. You know not where are your enemies, or who they are, or how strong. You don't know where to build, you have to explore. That is randomness on very basic level.

 

[Bringa]

Another thing to consider is replayability. How many times can you play over and over without getting bored? Randomness helps here. One time you get event, next time you wont. Depending on how things turn out game will play differently.

I'm calling . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . on that. I'll tell you why when I debunk your second paragraph.

And one more thing: Like it or not randomness cant be removed. 'No randomness at all' is by far impossible. On the very beginning map is RANDOM. You know not where are your enemies, or who they are, or how strong. You don't know where to build, you have to explore. That is randomness on very basic level.

Exactly. So, listen: no one wants to remove all randomness. I never said that, my mod goes nowhere near even trying that, and as you point out yourself, the very notion doesn't even make sense.

My mod removes unpredictability from combat results. Everything else is as in the normal game (as far as luck is concerned). Civ4 (and FFH even more so) is such an impossibly complex game that there's always a whole lot of randomness involved. Maps, as you pointed out, are random each time. But even if you played on the exact same map with the exact same starting positions, no two games would be alike. Every little decision you take differently opens up a whole new decision tree, meaning that no two games will even be remotely similar.

And if you take a moment to consider that, you'll see how beautifully it devalues your first argument. Combat randomness adds nearly zero replayability because in the great picture, the little variations that are added by losing a combat you should have won etc are negligible (as far as number of possible game situations goes). That is not to say they do not matter for the game you're in--they matter greatly. But what I'm saying is that they do NOT restrict the number of game situations you can experience and as such add no replayability.