Civ 2 - mistake in balancing between reality and gameplay

Mihailo · July 23, 2001, 15:03

The main problem of all the serie Civ is the programmer's efforts to adopt the player enjoy in the game, and for game to be realistic...

In the early beginning of it was quite clear that big mistake in field of diplomacy (it even got on my nerves in Civ 1).
Human player is never able to declare war on opponent "honestly" (like it was made in Master of Orion or Alpha Centauri). The only way appears to be the sneak attack.
Each peace breaking decreases the level of reputation.

And the worst of all when you create a mighty civilization (if you play on "prince" at least), all other civilizations declare war on you and make alliance. The cold or hostile attitude toward is always on.

Now I ask a question : In real life which small and miserable state dares to demands something or declare war on a giant one??

While the AL players can do whatever they want without damaged reputation....(maybe because they declare war honestly

)

Even if we get over all these facts, here comes the biggest disappointment that makes me delete Civ2 from hard disk.
Even if you are ready to go against ALL

READY to beat them !

You see you your cannon losing a battle against ancient looking phalanx

No more comments required !

I hope that I remarked all the Civ2 bad sides (you agree with me ?), and I really hope those the guys that work on Civ3 project will get it all improved....

Anyway, the Civ's basic concept is the best game ever imagined...

Caesar the Great · July 23, 2001, 22:47

How much do you value your head?

Alex 14 · July 24, 2001, 03:29

In Civ 3 nations with stronger cultures should be abel to repair their reputation quickly

. As for that stupid rule that you cant uphold military or declare war in Democracy & Republic, that better be changed.

.

fittstim · July 24, 2001, 05:07

Yeah but if you can declare war "honorably" in a democracy, then there is really no reason to have other types of governments because only a fool would use them.

Example, I'm in a democracy. I encounter a fledgling civilization. I declare war and, using the superiority of a democratic gov't (and capatalist economy) either use spies to buy out all the other cities or rush build the latest weapons to overrun the other civ.

The science advantage of DEM means that I'll be using the latest weapons and the money advantage means that I'll be able to bribe or rush-buy what I need.

There are reasons why one has to switch to FUND or COM in order to wage war (and deal with the decrease in sci). It's so that the first Civ to discover DEM doesn't easily take over the world while the other civs are stuck in MON or REP.

Hmmm, now that I think about it. I take over the world as soon as I discover DEM, so I guess it really doesn't matter...

The Andy-Man · July 24, 2001, 13:32

i can get science discoveries every 4 or 5 turns in a fundy, plus make 750gold + every turn and have 50% luxuries, so lots of happy people, we love the matriach days, imense wars, lotsa cash high production. need i say more?

EOL · July 24, 2001, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
i can get science discoveries every 4 or 5 turns in a fundy, plus make 750gold + every turn and have 50% luxuries, so lots of happy people, we love the matriach days, imense wars, lotsa cash high production. need i say more?

So in democracy you would probably be able to get 1-2 turn discoveries, maybe 3-400 cash (more if you don't want to grow cities by celebrating) and high production. High production in fundie = high production in demo, its only the low production cities which hurt and if your rush-buying it doesn't really matter either way. So if the senate didn't interfere with war I would have to go with demo. As it does interfere though...

The Andy-Man · July 24, 2001, 15:54

but in democracy each unit takes up a production sheild (i think), and i like to have atleast 3 units defending each city. Unless you are in later stages of the ganme where most cities have production of 50+ anyway, demo is good. but by this time i have such a large overseas army that the unhappiness would kill me

EOL · July 24, 2001, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but in democracy each unit takes up a production sheild (i think), and i like to have atleast 3 units defending each city. Unless you are in later stages of the ganme where most cities have production of 50+ anyway, demo is good. but by this time i have such a large overseas army that the unhappiness would kill me

If you've been able to max out most/all of your cities then production without factories etc.. is likely to be around 20 average. Sufficient to support a fairly large army. Size 21 cities with 20-40% luxuries (depending on trade/infrastructure) will still be happy (10-11 happy) with 5 units outside of cities/fortresses (10 unhappy). Another unit per city with Bach's. And more with police stations/Woman's Suffrage. Courthouses/CfC and you can lower the lux rate (HG before railroad). You can also go the Shakespeare's Theatre route in a high production city. The city doesn't need to build all the units, just support them. Even if you can only get cities up to size 12 in time, that's 3 units out of the city (with no police/bach help) and probably still at least 12-15 production (total).

Once you start taking enemy cities you will likely find that unhappiness is reduced as many units are residing in those cities or nearby forts (repairing or defending). If you don't use up all the movement points when attacking they can be moved into the conquered city that turn. If you build bombers a lot then you will probably want Shake's since they cause unhappiness regardless.

If unhappiness is still a problem you can attack in waves such that half your army is always in forts/cities repairing and preparing while the other half in top condition are taking cities and then swap when the first group are repaired, allowing the second lot to heal. You probably will lose less units this way too.

The Andy-Man · July 25, 2001, 16:37

hey, i just been trying a game out as a civ that only uses republic and then demo as thew amerixcans on real world.

i have found that with HG, Bachs, Mike'C (and later WSufferage) i have no revolts, 40% luixuries and many 'we love you' days

war is still a prob though, and without declaring war i became most powerfull and now have the whole world in an alliance against me

TCO · July 25, 2001, 17:23

If you ICS, fundy is better than democracy. You don't need to build so many city improvements and the tithes just add up like crazy.

The Andy-Man · July 25, 2001, 17:58

yeah, with Mikes C and A Smiths trading co, you make about 750gps per turn with tax set to 0.

Laszlo · August 9, 2001, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Mihailo
And the worst of all when you create a mighty civilization (if you play on "prince" at least), all other civilizations declare war on you and make alliance. The cold or hostile attitude toward is always on.

Hey Mihailo,
Lighten up! Don't go erasing CivII from your hard drive. It could be taken as a compliment. For:

When a true genius appears in the world,
you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

- Swift, Jonathan (1667 - 1745)
Thoughts on Various Subjects, 1706

Laszlo

Melios · September 8, 2001, 08:24

I noticed in Civ2 that yes, diplomacy was screwed up to no end.

1. AI civilizations were always hostile and constantly have gruges against you. Giving them cash or advances only pacifies them a little.

2. In alliances, at some point they'll claim it's "tedious" and demand money so they'll continue it. Bull**** if you ask me.

3. The AI can't stand to think it is NOT at the upper hand or the "superior" one so it just demands, demands, and demands you give up something or else you're considered insolent.

4. Even when war is declared and you'll easily crush them, they STILL are so sure they will "make you taste steel."

5. They're often stubborn at merely sharing maps. They also may "Claim they have no contact" withanother Civ when you see signs of SOME contact they previously had.

6. They are quick to offer cease-fires in wartime for a lot of money, but then will eventually go right back to being hostile, stubborn, and overly demanding.

7. The worst part was in Civ 2 Gold & Civ2 TOT: Hotseat games had the aI do diplomacy, which led to the same brand of idiocy and chaos. I HOPE Coiv3's Hot Seat DOES NOT have the AI do the diplomacy and screw things up against the actual player intentions.

8. Insane cheating!

There were some similar things that seemed weird or stupid to me in Civ2:

a. Great Wall normally forces cease-fires and peace, and will say "Sire! We cannot maintain an offensiveagainst this impenetratable Great Wall! Cease-fire/Peace Treaty signed!" So how can the Great Wall protect them from a naval invasion?

b. That United Nations wonder was screwed up. How the hell can it force your civilization to comply based on "world opinion?" If you've got the militaristic upper-hand how can a United Nations stop you?

(I always disabled that wonder in rules.txt

)

c. When Marco Polo's Embassy expires, how can the free embassies disappear just like that? You'd think that once an embassy is there it is permanent no matter how you got it.

Farmboy · September 8, 2001, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Melios

I noticed in Civ2 that yes, diplomacy was screwed up to no end.

1. AI civilizations were always hostile and constantly have gruges against you. Giving them cash or advances only pacifies them a little.

This was discussed earlier on these forums. In real life, the game of being a nation was basically just to get better, while in Civ2 there are no points for second place. Which is why the other countries always hate the Supreme nation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Melios

5. They're often stubborn at merely sharing maps. They also may "Claim they have no contact" withanother Civ when you see signs of SOME contact they previously had.

Saying that your nation has no contact with another is a polite/nice way of saying they don't want to declare war on them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Melios

b. That United Nations wonder was screwed up. How the hell can it force your civilization to comply based on "world opinion?" If you've got the militaristic upper-hand how can a United Nations stop you?

(I always disabled that wonder in rules.txt

)

The United States is currently the world's uncontested super power, but we don't go declare war on, and annex any country that mouths off to us because of world opinion.

Jaguar · September 8, 2001, 21:08

Well IMO Civ might as well be a duel where the one AI civ gets 12 settlers scattered around the map. Thats how it plays out.