 |
| |
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
One of the main problems of a lot of strategy games is "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" effect. Basically, if you're behind you tend to fall farther behind and if you're ahead its easy to continually wider your lead. This is especially true in the Civ series since if you have more land, you have more cities, which gives you more production, which gives you more science, which gives you better military which you can use to take away even more land from people etc. etc. etc.
In addition, even if different Civs grow at the same rate, the big civs get farther and farther ahead, since double a big number is a lot more than double a small number. I remember when I looked at all Civ 2 powergraphs, unless I hurt some other Civs you would almost never have all that much change in the relative power of AI civs.
Civ powergraphs should have lines zig-zagging all over the place, representing the rise and fall of powers, but to do this the lesser powers need a bit of a leg up when they're trying to catch up.
Some ideas (which would probably be pretty easly to implement or mod in) to deal with this:
-Get rid of any kind of bonus for being in the lead (free tech for getting philosophy first of whatever), if you're in the lead you don't need bonuses.
-Having people gang up on whoever's ahead is one of the traditional ways of doing this, however if it goes to far it can be a bit of a blunt instrument and on the other hand it can just make the richest civ have to spend a little of their big pile of cash to keep the little Civs happy. Maybe in addition to having people hate the big dog you could have the little Civs be less willing to bleed each others dry and more likely to ally with each other.
-The existing Civ 4 religion model seems to do this well. If you get way ahead in tech a lot of Holy Cities will pop up in your empire, I'm sure that having one of them would be good but having five would be a nightmare, due to making the religion of your empire very mixed and having just about everyone trying taking a bite out of your Civ to get their religion's holy city.
-Have tech tend to leak from high-tech to low tech Civs and have it be very hard to research tech if you're ahead of the curve and very easy if you're behind the curve (EU II has this, which CK having a provinced based version of this). Having conquerers get tech would be bad since that makes the people who can win wars and take cities get even stronger.
-Corruption keeps sprawling empires from getting too powerful, but the way it was set up in Civ III it was a bit of a blunt implement, (at least in the patches I played on, I'd get such insane corruption that it made conquering new cities worth and useless) especially if you like playing on big maps like I do. I hope that there's an intelligent implementation of something that serves the same purpose as corruption in Civ IV.
-The idea on another thread in this forum to make Civs tend to have civil wars when they change civics, especially if they're really big would be an amazing idea, both for game balance and historical accuracy. This would not only knock some sprawling empires down to size but make them have more of an incentive to hold onto outmoded government forms than smaller Civs, which would tend to make the big Civs conservative and inflexible (since they'd hesitate before changing their civics) which would be beautifully realistic.
-Possibly have it cost more to build additional wonders if you already have more wonders than average.
-Possibly Golden Ages could be set up in such a way as to give people who're in the back of the pack a boost.
-Maybe some kind of Vietnam-effect, in which when a rich country is fighting a poorer country (irregardless of civic type) the richer country gets war exhaustion faster.
-Perhaps very rich countries should pay a higher cost to build certain buildings and units (to represent higher labor costs etc.). For example is cheaper for China to pay for a million infantrymen than it is for the US, the "hordes of screaming teenages with AK-47s" should be a viable option.
-Land exhaustion. Maybe if an area is farmed too intensively for too many thousands of years it starts giving out...
-Make it easy to conquer but hard to hang onto new territory (some of this is already in, like having high culture up your defences which makes it hard to hold onto newly conquered cities). Ebb and flow is good.
-Anything else?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cabbagemeister
|
|
The problem with the "holy city as leveler" idea is that, from what I've read, it seems like AI civs will be MORE friendly towards you if you have their holy city. I think there's supposed to be a happiness hit for going to war with the founder of a religion, isn't there? I bet the AI will only be able to "plan" for the immediate negative consequences of going to war with the holy city, and won't be able to see the potential benefits of actually conquering said holy city. I think the holy city concept will definitely only add to the "rich get richer" idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Bosh
-Have tech tend to leak from high-tech to low tech Civs and have it be very hard to research tech if you're ahead of the curve and very easy if you're behind the curve (EU II has this, which CK having a provinced based version of this). Having conquerers get tech would be bad since that makes the people who can win wars and take cities get even stronger.
|
I love this idea, mostly because it's soooo realistic. This has been missing from every Civ game, and I really really hope it gets implemented in Civ4.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cabbagemeister
|
|
Would it? I'm not sure. The only "multiple holy city" in the real world is Jerusalem, I believe. Many Islamic nations are currently unfriendly towards Israel, the nation that holds Jerusalem...but, as argued in another thread, Jerusalem is only the 3rd most holy Muslim city. On the other hand, most Christian nations are and have always been friendly towards Israel, despite the fact that Jerusalem is probably equivalent to Rome as the most holy Christian city. It's unlikely that any Christian country nowadays would try to conquer Jerusalem for its holiness.
OTOH, I guess the Crusades were all about Christian nations trying to conquer their holy city. And one could argue that the formation of Israel itself was the result of a desire by the Jews to own their holy city. So I guess your point is well taken.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bosh
-Have tech tend to leak from high-tech to low tech Civs and have it be very hard to research tech if you're ahead of the curve and very easy if you're behind the curve (EU II has this, which CK having a provinced based version of this). Having conquerers get tech would be bad since that makes the people who can win wars and take cities get even stronger. |
I see 1 difficulty with this.
If I have a rather small empire, but through savvy trading and researching, I get the tech lead... it would be unbalancing if a larger civ gets the tech leaked to them. Having the tech lead would be my only advantage, so I should be given a chance to use it before it leaks away.
So perhaps techs only start leaking from civs that are ahead in several categories(military, land, tech, points, and mix of them), and civs that are small, peaceful and trying to make a comeback dont get affected by this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cabbagemeister
|
|
Okay, here's a question.
It's clear that in Civ3, the designers were trying to do something like the proposed tech-leaking. The cost of a tech (for purchase or for research) would dramatically decrease depending on how many (known) civs posessed it. I'm sure the thinking was, "Let's make it harder for the leader to do research compared to everyone else. That will act as a leveling device, and keep some civs from getting way too far advanced compared to others. It will increase game balance." Which is the same thing we're saying here.
So why didn't it work? Why are we still trying to propose methods to speed up tech research for the smaller civs? Was it just a matter of degree (e.g. the costs didn't vary enough), or was it a matter of concept (e.g. something about the idea was fundamentally flawed)? More impotantly, are any of the proposals we're discussing here different enough from the Civ3 model that they can succeed where it failed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cabbagemeister
Okay, here's a question.
It's clear that in Civ3, the designers were trying to do something like the proposed tech-leaking...
So why didn't it work? Why are we still trying to propose methods to speed up tech research for the smaller civs? Was it just a matter of degree (e.g. the costs didn't vary enough), or was it a matter of concept (e.g. something about the idea was fundamentally flawed)? |
It was the means to help the smaller civs, but it felt unnatural how it was executed...
One thing I did not like about the tech leaking is that to some degree, it creates a disincentive to focus on research because it applied to everyone. (a tech welfare state anyone???) In early versions of civ3, it was a given that players would often set research at 0-10% and then either buy the techs they wanted or ride the coattails of someone else and then with cash, slingshot into the lead with some savvy trading. The act of actual research felt like a waste of effort.
The AI benefitted to some degree because of slanted trade deals that favored the AIs too, but once the player was able to get his cash house in order, he could catch up.
In this regard, I'd favor making all tech trading very expensive (and hard to accomplish for all players, be they AI or human). Keep a tech-leak for the AI that is tied into ranking in relation to the human player. (AI players that are behind the human player will get a research benefit that will allow them to gradually close the gap with the player, but once caught, the bonus will disappear - AI players above the human player will not lose anything to the player (or gain anything over and above their normal bonuses due to difficulty level)
The human player gains nothing, and at the same time, he does not really lose anything either. Bottom line - he has to concentrate on research for the sake of research.
On the surface, my solution probably has an 'unnatural' feel to it (it works more as a subtle cheat because it is slanted to the AI) but it is one of those situations where the gameplay it creates is better because the end result creates the need to internally create a climate of tech development that is based on research. After all, the cost of research is already modelled on an economic necessity (gold is the main engine that creates research). No need to slant it totally on the economic side...
Last edited by hexagonian on 28-05-2005 at 01:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
|
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
As I remember Civ 3....
there was a minimum research time of 4 turns. No matter how big or small you were, if you through everything into research, you couldn't get it sooner than 4 turns.
So the #1 Civ has a huge empire. Its got the luxuries it needs to keep citizens happy without using the luxury slider. the player puts everything into research. Brand new, undiscovered techs are being researched in 4 turns.
Meanwhile, the middle of the road civ has maybe 1 luxury, so it needs to use a luxury slider. It cant spend very much on research, so its researching techs in 12, maybe 16 turns. the Civ falls behind and is at the bottom of the tech ladder. the Wellfare part kicks in, and the techs become cheaper. Its researching Nationalism in 4 turns, while the #1 Civ is already researching Airplanes.... also for 4 turns.
So the small civs do get their discounts, but because of the minimum time, and the ammount of money a big civ can throw at research, it always lags behind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cabbagemeister
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninot
So the #1 Civ has a huge empire. Its got the luxuries it needs to keep citizens happy without using the luxury slider. the player puts everything into research. Brand new, undiscovered techs are being researched in 4 turns.
Meanwhile, the middle of the road civ has maybe 1 luxury, so it needs to use a luxury slider. It cant spend very much on research, so its researching techs in 12, maybe 16 turns. the Civ falls behind and is at the bottom of the tech ladder. the Wellfare part kicks in, and the techs become cheaper. Its researching Nationalism in 4 turns, while the #1 Civ is already researching Airplanes.... also for 4 turns.
So the small civs do get their discounts, but because of the minimum time, and the ammount of money a big civ can throw at research, it always lags behind. |
But there's an easy solution for that problem: reduce science to nothing, jack up your income, and buy a tech from the leaders at a super-discounted price every 1 or 2 turns. The leaders get more money, but so what? They still can't go faster than 4 turns / tech. You do eventually catch up (unless you're so small you can't make enough money even for the discount prices, in which case you don't deserve to catch up).
This SEEMS like it should work. Every time I think about how to fix the tech progression to help laggers catch up, this kind of "discount tech for the slow guys" solution presents itself. But they're really all just rehashes of what Civ3 did, which didn't work.
Do we just need more, deeper discounts? Or discounted tech costs plus a small chance of "tech leakage," so you could even get two techs in a turn?
Or...maybe the game mechanics are okay, but it's just the AI that needs work. Sure, it's possible to buy a tech every 2 turns, but is the AI smart enough to jack up its income like that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
Well, I think that four things which could help reduce 'Feedback Loops' (or the 'Snowball Effect' as I call it) are:
1) Having to pay maintainance on tile improvements-especially roads and rail-would take more money out of the coffers of larger nations than smaller ones. It would also be good if cities had a base maintainance cost.
2) Health sounds like it will have a greater impact on faster growing nations than slower growing ones.
3) It would be good if cultural and-to a lesser exent-scientific techs did drift to other nations with whom the discovering nation has trade contacts (the more trade routes, the more likely drift is to occur.) Military techs should be gained by discovery or trade ONLY-and such techs should come at a VERY high cost in trade!!
4) Decreased Stability for Larger Empires-and hence greater chance of secession-UNLESS said Empires take the time to consolidate their gains.
By the sounds of it too, the unit promotion system sounds like it will more favour experience over sheer numbers! Here's hoping.
That said, one thing I can say without doubt is that the Snowball Effect MUST be curtailed.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
4. More and deadlier barbarians. There could be special barbarian promotions that allow them to destroy improvements and move in the same turn, for example.
|
This would hurt small nations much much more than large ones. |
Unless, of course, barbarians were coded to go after large civs... there's more wealth there afterall.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeoModder
Not necessarily. The Aztecs and Maya's were large civilisations, but wealth? |
Ever heard of the "legendary" city of gold? The reason they were conquered was because of the Spanish lust for gold.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-05-2005 14:19
And what was there was of poorer quality then they were used to.
|
|