 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
Hey guys, don't know if you are interested, but Soren made an appearance on CFC, and 'more or less' confirmed several of my theories regarding why ICS won't be as successful as in previous iterations of the game (or, more to the point, how smaller civs will be able to keep pace with larger civs).
Check out the thread in question HERE
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
In a battle between the Players and the Creators to break a game, I've always seen the players win. Civ4 shall be broken just as every Civ game before it has.
What I'm worried about is that with the ranking system in multiplayer Firaxis will feel obliged to "fix" the game. Not a bad thing in itself, but I've seen a lot of patches in various games that broke the game further, or solved a problem by deleting it entirely, increasing fairness at the cost of variety.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
I think you are misunderstanding things guys. First up, there is a difference between size in terms of population, and size in terms of number of cities. In the former case, the player build a half a dozen key cities very early in the game-probably close to vital resources like iron or wheat. If he sustains the health of these cities, and builds the improvements he needs to reduce their running costs, then this will lead to very profitable cities that can afford to start to specialise within the first 1000-2000 years of the game. This specialisation will, in turn, allow them to create Great People and foster big spurts in economic, cultural and technological growth. Also, with the extra cash he will have (especially if he is heavily involved in trade) he can push his cultural/technological growth even further.
Meanwhile the latter player starts spamming his settlers, sending them out in all directions and attempting to grab every last space of land (as currently occurs). Only problem is that this will leave said player short of cash, cash which he desperately needs to maintain his tech and culture rates-this leads to valuable tiles around certain cities getting swallowed up by neighbouring civs, whilst all the time he finds himself with less cash in the kitty and falling way behind in the tech race. Yes, in time he will get his population in these cities up to a reasonable level to specialise, but by this time he/she may already be as much as 1500 years behind nations only a quarter of his size. He can catch up if he gets sufficient Great People via specialisation (asuuming his neighbours haven't 'swallowed him up'), but this may not occur until the Late Middle/Early Industrial ages-but thats fine because it will simply make for a much more fun end-game than has ever been the case in Civ1,2 or 3.
A middle road might be to expand a bit, build up your cities for around 10-20 turns, then expand a little bit more etc etc-but even this 'staged expansion' will probably lead to a more even level of power between civs of varying size than is currently the case.
What you have to realise is that at no time have they indicated a desire to end large nations, merely to ensure that size alone is not the source of all power and ultimate victory. I can't see why you guys lack the ability to be positive for a change  .
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002
time: 02:37
|
|
@Paddy: You definitely has a point here.
I would love to lead a small/medium empire, strong in tech, culture and military. Especially in the early game. OTOH, I would like to keep my alternatives open, like be able to build a huge empire, under special circumstances. I don’t know, I just would like to see a “smart” game, for a change. But…
quote:
Originally posted by Senethro
In a battle between the Players and the Creators to break a game, I've always seen the players win. Civ4 shall be broken just as every Civ game before it has.
|
We just don’t have technology enough to make AI better. Well, we do have, but is not cheap. At least for us… Remember the kind of computer necessary to win consistently the chess-masters. 
But who cares? I want my Civ IV, as soon as possible, no matters how buggy and crude it will be. I’ll patch it, anyway. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
As I said, the issue for me is that Small to medium nations won't be automatically penalised for simply being small, wheras players who simply spam the landscape with their settlers will only do so if they are prepared to sacrifice culture and tech advancement. To me, that just sounds like such a great thing-no more Snowball Effect!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2005 05:24
. 
|