Thread Tools
Old August 13, 2002, 18:59   #1
annoyed
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 53
for Civ4
Two things. One, to much early exploring. By the time the explorer unit can be acquired all available land is filled up. For Civ4, my suggestion is EU still attrition. Should be easily applied to a turn-based game.

Second, to much early city building. Not sure of best fix right now, but I know at the beginning of civilization, man had many obstacles to over come besides other men. I wish more randomn events besides disease in flood plain was insituted, and that these events would apply to AI also. Early games now are a big city-building race, or warfare on a massive scale. Have not come up with cogent fix yet, still cogitating. Not even sure if I am the only one who thinks a fix is desirable.
annoyed is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 19:14   #2
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally posted by annoyed
Two things. One, to much early exploring. By the time the explorer unit can be acquired all available land is filled up. For Civ4, my suggestion is EU still attrition. Should be easily applied to a turn-based game.

Second, to much early city building. Not sure of best fix right now, but I know at the beginning of civilization, man had many obstacles to over come besides other men. I wish more randomn events besides disease in flood plain was insituted, and that these events would apply to AI also. Early games now are a big city-building race, or warfare on a massive scale. Have not come up with cogent fix yet, still cogitating. Not even sure if I am the only one who thinks a fix is desirable.
Your points are 100% valid. Yes, a fix is desirable, and needed.

We have complained about these problems for months; they even have a name - Settler Diarrhea.

There is nothing left to explore by the time we get to caravels!! So of course the Explorer unit is useless for exploring. And Settlers flooding your territory is another pain in the neck violating your borders.

It was a lot more fun to have something left to explore, settle, and colonize even later in the game as in Civ 2.

I think the two reasons Firaxis did this stuff is the out of control corruption rates in the initial game that make overseas cities useless for production, and the mad nutty rush for the all too scarce strategic resources in the unmodded game.

We all await Civ 4. So long as no one at Firaxis does it.
Coracle is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 19:26   #3
Tuberski
 
Tuberski's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ACK!! PPHHHHTTBBBTTTT!!!
Posts: 7,022
Quote:
Originally posted by Coracle


Your points are 100% valid. Yes, a fix is desirable, and needed.

We have complained about these problems for months; they even have a name - Settler Diarrhea.
Are you using the royal "We"?
__________________
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside. Look out, he's fuzzy, let's get out of here."
Tuberski is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 19:39   #4
N. Machiavelli
Prince
 
N. Machiavelli's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Prince
Posts: 359
We are not amused.
N. Machiavelli is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 20:05   #5
Edrix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Keep in mind, though, that the rapid expansion at the beginning of the game isn't exactly that fast when compared with the timescale. The early turns are anywhere between 50-20 years at a pop; plenty of time to send settlers out, overcome obstacles and disease, and found a new city (to get a settler from one city to a city site about 6 tiles away takes over 200 game years on average).
 
Old August 13, 2002, 21:25   #6
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 02:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
Yes it may be long 'time-wise', but most people care more about gameplay value. And he's right... the world gets revealed far too quickly. How could they fix this? Well, aside from a larger map, I'm not really sure.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 21:42   #7
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
We are not amused.
And you are not amusing, wise-guy.

Now answer "annoyed's" points with something sensible for a change.
Coracle is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 21:45   #8
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally posted by Trip
Yes it may be long 'time-wise', but most people care more about gameplay value. And he's right... the world gets revealed far too quickly. How could they fix this? Well, aside from a larger map, I'm not really sure.
So how did they do it in Civ 1 and Civ 2?? It did not happen there.

Make settlers more expensive. Limit the number that can be built at any one time. Prevent any rushing of settlers. Give explorers zones of control that settlers cannot pass through. Prevent settlers from building towns on tundra, desert, or jungle. I already modded settlers to be wheeled so they get stopped by mountains and jungles without a road.

There are many options and those are just a few Firaxis can try. Also, stop the AI from seeing the entire map and heading for open tiles they should not even be aware of.
Coracle is offline  
Old August 13, 2002, 21:59   #9
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 02:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
Quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
So how did they do it in Civ 1 and Civ 2?? It did not happen there.
Because in 1 and 2 you could beat the pants off of the AI using a few simple strategies. In Civ 3, the human can either rush to fill in every spot (REX), or focus on a core empire. In the long run, most people will agree that a larger empire is better, and therefore the AI aims to achieve that through what you call 'settler diarrhea'. Do I like it? No. I don't want either the AI or the human to be able to do it, but the AI will do it no matter how you mod values because it's designed to do it to prevent the human from getting an advantage. That means the human has to do it also to keep par with the AI.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 03:15   #10
Robert Plomp
admin
DiploGamesBtS Tri-LeaguePolyCast TeamC4WDG Team Apolyton
Administrator
 
Robert Plomp's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 11,635
Quote:
We have complained about these problems for monthsj
We have not.

Of course the early game consists mostly of expanding your empire. We like that part of the game. You need inteligence to spread, and meanwhile keep your people happy, and keep good relations with your neighbours.

We love that part of the game pherhaps most of all!

don't change it, we love it

And about the random events, no thanks. We don't like that. That's most because we are not in control of it. Pherhaps it's very realistic, but we think it's less fun. We never liked it in civ1 anyway.

thanks for listening to our opinion
__________________
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Robert Plomp is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 03:24   #11
Lord Merciless
Warlord
 
Lord Merciless's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:03
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 249
Civ2 AI is puny. It didn't know how to expand, it didn't know what city improvements to build, it didn't know what terrain improvements to make, it didn't know how to get from point A to point B, and it didn't how to carry out offensive military operations.

Settler Diarrhea is nothing else but ICS, only this time it's carried out by the AI rather than by the human player. There is only one counter to it, as in Civ2 MP: beat the crap of anyone who does that.
Lord Merciless is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 09:05   #12
fittstim
Warlord
 
fittstim's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
There is nothing left to explore by the time we get to caravels!! So of course the Explorer unit is useless for exploring. And Settlers flooding your territory is another pain in the neck violating your borders.
Very true. That's why I think giving certain civs the scout from the begining is unfair. They are cheaply built. They have a 2 movement and can explore huge areas of land gobbling up all goody huts.

Other civs have to wait to discover Horseback Riding and then get a certain strategic resource (horse) in order to be able to build a more expensice horseman in order to have a unit capable of exploring with a movement of 2.

My solutiuon is to change the movement of a scout from 2 to 1 and give it an attack/defense of 1. Thus it is put on par with a warrior and balances things out nicely.
fittstim is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 09:30   #13
lockstep
Apolyton University
King
 
lockstep's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,529
IMO, a good solution to slow the land grab of both human players and AI's - although not yet possible with the editor - would be to increase the food box size for level 1 cities (i.e. the number of food bushels needed for city growth). Currently, the food box sizes for the different city levels are 20/40/60, I'd try 30/40/50 or even 40/40/40.

BTW, this editor tweak shouldn't be too hard to do for PtW. Mike B, are you listening?
__________________
"As far as general advice on mod-making: Go slow as far as adding new things to the game until you have the basic game all smoothed out ... Make sure the things you change are really imbalances and not just something that doesn't fit with your particular style of play." - WesW
lockstep is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 09:50   #14
Stuie
King
 
Stuie's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Philly
Posts: 2,961
Quote:
Originally posted by fittstim
That's why I think giving certain civs the scout from the begining is unfair. They are cheaply built. They have a 2 movement and can explore huge areas of land gobbling up all goody huts.
It's also the ONLY thing that the Expansionist trait has going for it. Most people complain that the trait is too weak; nice to see a different opinion for once.
__________________
"Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
"I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
"Stuie is right...." - Guynemer
Stuie is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 09:52   #15
Edrix
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by fittstim
My solutiuon is to change the movement of a scout from 2 to 1 and give it an attack/defense of 1.
Wouldn't that make it exactly the same as the warrior?
 
Old August 14, 2002, 13:23   #16
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 02:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
The scout would be the only reason to play an Expansionist Civ. Without it, the trait would be utterly useless. Why would you want to render a trait pointless like that? The early 2 movement is designed to give them that advantage.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 22:22   #17
annoyed
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 53
How could they fix this? Well, aside from a larger map, I'm not really sure.
____________________________________________

Am I the only one who likes the attrition idea. Or am I the only one who has played EU. To me attrition makes sense not only historically but is as easily implemented in a turn-based game as in a real-time game. Also that would keep civ games from turning into almost purely a wargame in order to win at regent or above.
annoyed is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 22:34   #18
annoyed
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 53
In response to Cybershy:

Some suggestions should either be included in optional rules or should the game should allow the editor to change things more extensively. We(I) are not blasting the game(although I admit I did when it first came out), there are just different tastes people bring to a civ game, and when a topic as broad as Civilization itself is the subject of a game, more steps need to be taken to allow a variety of grand strategies(not tactics-I have read and been impressed by the multivarious tactics invented that I would never have thought of in a million years) to be used. That's all.
annoyed is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 22:37   #19
Jon Shafer
PtWDG RoleplayPtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG Neu DemogypticaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG LegolandPtWDG Vox ControliPtWDG Glory of WarPtWDG2 SunshineApolyton UniversityC3CDG Desolation RowApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG SarantiumApolyCon 06 ParticipantsPtWDG Lux Invicta
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
 
Local Time: 02:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
Quote:
Originally posted by annoyed
How could they fix this? Well, aside from a larger map, I'm not really sure.
____________________________________________

Am I the only one who likes the attrition idea. Or am I the only one who has played EU. To me attrition makes sense not only historically but is as easily implemented in a turn-based game as in a real-time game. Also that would keep civ games from turning into almost purely a wargame in order to win at regent or above.
Not a bad idea...
Say, 'teams' of scouts can only go so far before having to return to 'base' or els ethey lose HP every so often. Good idea, I like it.

Too bad it won't happen.
Jon Shafer is offline  
Old August 14, 2002, 22:46   #20
annoyed
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 53
Keep in mind, though, that the rapid expansion at the beginning of the game isn't exactly that fast when compared with the timescale. The early turns are anywhere between 50-20 years at a pop; plenty of time to send settlers out, overcome obstacles and disease, and found a new city (to get a settler from one city to a city site about 6 tiles away takes over 200 game years on average).
_____________________________________________

Dude, the whole frigging world is usually completely civilized by the time Christ was born. That is not even close to being in the realm of historical fiction, much less real live history itself. Now uncivilized communities dotted the world for millenia until the present day. I am thinking instead of just roving tribes, static tribes that are not involved in the race to supremacy could be set and some could spring up randomnly.
annoyed is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 00:19   #21
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:03
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by Trip
The scout would be the only reason to play an Expansionist Civ. Without it, the trait would be utterly useless. Why would you want to render a trait pointless like that? The early 2 movement is designed to give them that advantage.
The scout's 2 movement points are nice, but I would argue that the true value of the expansionist civ is the ability to to pop goody huts and never get barbarians -- the worst you'll ever get is "abandoned hut" whether you pop a hut with a scout or a warrior.

My beef with the expansionist trait is that it is so dependent on map generation / choice -- for those who play random settings, an archipelago map renders the expansionist trait much less valuable; a pangea makes it more worthwhile - unless of course your random barbarian setting produced no barbarians, in which case the trait is once again much less valuable. None of the other five traits has a value that is so variable dependent on map settings.

Catt
Catt is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 00:51   #22
Falconius
Prince
 
Falconius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stratford, NJ
Posts: 374
I agree with annoyed. I'm somewhat annoyed myself over this settler diarhea problem.

What I find MOST annoying about it is that all the AI civs do it, no matter who they are. There's no variety to the AI's gameplay aside from military aggression levels and the use of UUs. In Civ I and II, the different Civs had different priorities. Some were expansionists (cranking out settlers), some were militarists (cranking out military units), some were perfectionists (cranking out city improvements). In Civ III, they are all expansionists, which has effectively killed the variety of the gameplay.

Now I know this was done so that the human players who used the ICS strategy would be countered. But what about the rest of us who preferred to use a variety of other tactics? Now we are forced to play the way the ICS players always played, and the way the AI plays now. Sorry, but this has become tiresome, especially on larger maps. On a large map, you spend endless hours churning out settlers just to keep up with the number of cities being built by the AI civs. Is this supposed to be fun?

One possible solution: Give us an adjuster in the editor to set the "settler diarhea" levels of each civ (but with a better name like ICS or REX, or whatever). This, coupled with the Aggression Level adjuster, would enable players to decide what kind of civs to play against: expansionists, militarists, or perfectionists. Firaxis, are you listening?

DEATH TO THE EXPANSIONISTS!
__________________
Eine Spritze gegen Schmerzen, bitte.
Falconius is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 04:49   #23
NeoStar
Warlord
 
NeoStar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 266
Videos.

Those wonder movies were the best touch - even though you stopped watching them eventually I sometimes let the good ones roll.

And victory/defeat movies...
__________________
"Show me a man or a woman alone and I'll show you a saint. Give me two and they'll fall in love. Give me three and they'll invent the charming thing we call 'society'. Give me four and they'll build a pyramid. Give me five and they'll make one an outcast. Give me six and they'll reinvent prejudice. Give me seven and in seven years they'll reinvent warfare. Man may have been made in the image of God, but human society was made in the image of His opposite number, and is always trying to get back home." - Glen Bateman, The Stand (Stephen King)
NeoStar is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 05:23   #24
TacticalGrace
Prince
 
TacticalGrace's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Invisible, Silent, Deadly.
Posts: 310
Wilderness conservation
I think that the barbarians should be made more powerful. If they had more powerful units, either by giving them regulars and vets later in the ame or by giving them more advanced units like swordsman, and they cam in increasing numbers, then the advance of the ultra-setters would be slowed down.

At the moment you have to play with barbs on the highest setting for them to have any impact, and still they are the soft touch and are used for an easy upgrade.
__________________
Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...
TacticalGrace is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 06:13   #25
Barchan
Warlord
 
Barchan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: drifting across the sands of time....
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally posted by NeoStar
And victory/defeat movies...
Well, CivIII does have that one Space Race win video. The trouble is, it's so good it just makes you sad that there aren't any others....
Barchan is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 10:48   #26
Ksim3000
Chieftain
 
Ksim3000's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Re: Wilderness conservation
[QUOTE] Originally posted by TacticalGrace
I think that the barbarians should be made more powerful. If they had more powerful units, either by giving them regulars and vets later in the ame or by giving them more advanced units like swordsman, and they cam in increasing numbers


I would rather have the Barbarians like what they are at the moment. If they were made any stronger and had larger numbers, It would be such a pain especially while sending Settlers out to find new resources.
Ksim3000 is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 18:41   #27
HazieDaVampire
King
 
HazieDaVampire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The British Empire
Posts: 1,105
I'd like to find my self in a Europe of the game, and after a while to go over seas and find a pritty none technological advanced nations, like the Native Americans and the Zulus, that would be cool!
HazieDaVampire is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 19:29   #28
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
I'd like to find my self in a Europe of the game, and after a while to go over seas and find a pritty none technological advanced nations, like the Native Americans and the Zulus, that would be cool!
I agree!

Months ago someone did a mod on a real world map with actual start positions. They put the Aztecs, Zulus, and Iroquois in also BUT WITHOUT the ability to create certain improvements. So, when the other civs got there these were relatively backwards people, although they had a lot of towns. I forget the name of it, but hopefully now with scenarios someone can do an even better job.

It made for an interesting game.
Coracle is offline  
Old August 15, 2002, 20:11   #29
HazieDaVampire
King
 
HazieDaVampire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The British Empire
Posts: 1,105
where you get it?
HazieDaVampire is offline  
Old August 16, 2002, 20:58   #30
annoyed
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:03
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 53
Months ago someone did a mod on a real world map with actual start positions. They put the Aztecs, Zulus, and Iroquois in also BUT WITHOUT the ability to create certain improvements. So, when the other civs got there these were relatively backwards people, although they had a lot of towns. I forget the name of it, but hopefully now with scenarios someone can do an even better job.

that is how the game should be. I want competition from other civs, i just do not want to fight to settle every friggin' corner of the earth a 1/3 thru the game, and then end up with a repititious game of war, build-up,war, build-up. Exploration is probably the funnest part of the game, and is taken away to damn soon.
annoyed is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team