 |
| |
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
Cort Haus: Thanks for the reply. One idea I've thrown around is simply that after a certain number of cities founded or a certain level of government achieved, you go to a state model and not a city model. At this point, you have a handful of states (representing numerous cities) that now ask you different kinds of questions: states rights, regional taxes, etc., and population flows would be effected, lets say, by making your Northern States have a good quality of life while the Southern States have mostly dirty factories, low health care, etc.
In other words, I want the management of my empire to challenge me as much as if not more than the enemy AI itself. I mean here, of course, an intellectual challenge and NOT the challenge merely of cycling through my city build cues for the umteenth time to make sure I've actually got them all doing something useful. Anyway, if Civ is an Empire game, then let's see some empire management and not forever keep us locked in low-level city sweeping.
Adm.Naismith: Man, if I can get to Milano and have that pizza, I'll lose ANY bet.  I think I will enjoy testing and prodding Civ, and I bet you are right that the process would take about 3 months...so you win already! By the same token, if you come to New York (or New Haven), let me know.
AeonOfTime: I suspect you guys are too smart to take that bet. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
The key Yin, from what I understand, is that cities can and will make money-obviously-but that this is no longer a given. In civ3 every city you built was a guarantee of profit. Why? Because the city itself generated income and then, once you had built a few roads, you were home and hosed. Now, as we know, roads do NOT generate commerce, but certain squares (unimproved and improved) do generate income-this means that choosing a location for a city is going to be very important, for both health and financial reasons, making settler spamming much less successful-especially when you combine it with what I described above!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
andyiam
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
For Civ5 I want citizens to SPONTANEOUSLY become dissatisfied with where they are living and decide to leave Dodge. |
Yeah, it would be cool to give the civilians a bit more independence like this. I really like this idea. (Ooops, I'm off topic? But I really like this idea)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drakan
|
 |
Málaga, Spain
Jun 2004
time: 06:37
|
|
From Gamespot's article:
" The ultimate key to survival in Civ multiplayer, though, is expansion, which makes sense. If you have three cities, and your opponent has six cities, you're in obvious trouble. Simply put, you need to build up a larger empire than your rivals so you can generate a larger economy, which helps you not only create a larger army, but also lets you research up the technology tree faster, letting you unlock some potentially decisive technologies. "
I guess this proves Yin's point of view.
Nihil Novi Sub Sole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MarkG
|
|
Grand Lord of Apolyton, Owner of all this land as far as the eye can see
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drakan
From Gamespot's article:
" The ultimate key to survival in Civ multiplayer, though, is expansion, which makes sense. If you have three cities, and your opponent has six cities, you're in obvious trouble. Simply put, you need to build up a larger empire than your rivals so you can generate a larger economy, which helps you not only create a larger army, but also lets you research up the technology tree faster, letting you unlock some potentially decisive technologies. "
I guess this proves Yin's point of view.
|
gold (economy) doesnt equal more units. you need production for units
as for the number of cities, when you have three buildings increasing gold by 25-50% you need much more small cities to equal a big one
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
OK, I read that same article, and I confess that I am incredibly disappointed by the claim made by the reviewer in regards to expansion. However, I still hold onto some degree of hope for several key reasons:
1) Soren Johnson has already confirmed all the major ways in which rapid expansion (leading to ever more expansion) have been curtailed, and they all sound totally feasible to me.
2) The reviewer himself partly contradicts himself in the very next paragraph-by saying how rapid expansion can ruin the player. This, in itself, is a big difference from civ3-where expansion was automatically successful, and simply fueled even more expansion-and so on and so forth. Now, it sounds a lot less guaranteed.
3) The reviewer was playing a short, fast MP game, where more subtle influences such as civics, religion and trade probably played little or no part. These three factors will, I believe, have the greatest impacts on the relative economic/military strength of large and small civilizations.
For instance, the Gamespy reviewer was talking about his MP experience, and how he went around converting the cities of other civs to his religion-and how he was raking in huge amounts of cash via his holy city. Now, this amount of cash could be recieved by a civ whether they have 5 cities or 20 cities. There is also a strong suggestion that the maintainance costs of certain civics settings will be based on the number of cities they control.
So, yes I am a little bit nervous after this review, but overall I still have hope that in this Civ, a player will be able to play civs in a style like England, Switzerland and The Netherlands whilst still keeping very competitive.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
quote:
Build too many cities too quickly and you'll have a lot of vulnerable cities to defend. But if you wait too long, the enemy will get the jump on you. |
Sounds like Civ as always, frankly. The bottom line in ICS has ever been that it's perfectly acceptable to lose some of your young, outlying cities if the overall benefit is that your sheer volume of cities is powering up a huge production base. And I'm not against this on paper. I'm against the ensuing, mindless micro that tending to these billion cities forces on the player. Yes, there are governors, and if they ever worked well, I might use them and feel that the micro is tolerable.
Also, there do seem to be some nice tweaks to the formula overall, still Civ, of course. If anything, I'm now at least eager to have some fun ICS'ing for a few months.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wise Ass
|
|
Your Mom's House... Why?
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
Yin, just out of curiosity, what did you think about the management controls of CTP(II)? I mean ICS still worked but city management was considerably easier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MarkG
|
|
Grand Lord of Apolyton, Owner of all this land as far as the eye can see
|
|
patience (= not judging (or even making assumptions) based on a single preview from a civ newbie) is a virtue
quote:
That's because the expansionism strategy of previous Civs, where you tried to build as many cities as possible as quickly as you could, has taken a hit in Civ IV. There are many more pressures on you at the beginning of the game, and it can be unwise, as well as downright difficult, to expand too rapidly. What you need to do is balance your priorities between expansion, research, building military units, and improving your core cities. Build too many cities too quickly and you'll have a lot of vulnerable cities to defend. But if you wait too long, the enemy will get the jump on you.
|
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy..._6133286-2.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Sounds like Civ as always, frankly. The bottom line in ICS has ever been that it's perfectly acceptable to lose some of your young, outlying cities if the overall benefit is that your sheer volume of cities is powering up a huge production base. And I'm not against this on paper. I'm against the ensuing, mindless micro that tending to these billion cities forces on the player. Yes, there are governors, and if they ever worked well, I might use them and feel that the micro is tolerable.
Also, there do seem to be some nice tweaks to the formula overall, still Civ, of course. If anything, I'm now at least eager to have some fun ICS'ing for a few months. |
The only thing I can remember to you is playing on smaller maps and with more opponents. This pretty much kills the expansion thing and gives you an interesting challenge more quickly.... okay it'd be interesting if the AI would be more intelligent, but well.
Anyway, however Civ4 will turn out, this time I guess we'll have a chance to mod it well enough to have a radically different game. At least I hope it.
I like what the Rise and Rule mod has done to C3C, it's still Civ3, but different in a good direction.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:37
|
|
Markos: I'm glad you're fighting the good fight. It reminds me a bit, though, of Hussein's Communications Director standing near the exploding Bagdhad Airport claiming all the infidels have been wiped from Iraq.
Wise Ass: I've actually been playing Ages of Man quite a bit. While there is still a lot of city-based tedium involved, I think public works is nice. I've heard some gamers say "Yes, but I feel like the work it takes me to give my engineers endless build commands means I've earned the road" -- well, O.K. Frankly I'd like to reserve my time and effort for a mental challenge, but that's just me. Anyway, it's Stan's mod (or expansion pack) that really throws you curve balls, and I've enjoyed some of the AI and scripted elements he has done.
AeonOfTime: I don't doubt that with Civ 4 you'll be able to do more with fewer cities...and this might even work well against a hobbled AI. But at more competitive levels, doing that will likely put you at a self-inflicted disadvantage. Again, this is nothing new, and I'm not crying about it. I just hoped for something more radical.
Atahualpa: Good point. It's such a give and take. On the one hand, starting an epic game on a huge map really gives you a sense of the sweep of time, the grand battles, etc. But the AI simply can't keep up. On smaller maps, AI weaknesses aren't allowed to gather as much steam (usually), and as long as they have been programmed to have an aggressive opening build sequence, ICS does keep limited -- at least for some rather tense turns in the early going. Of course, this type of game doesn't tend to offer that grand sense of space feeling, but that's life. Compromise. As I've said elsewhere, and as you've said here, I think the unprecedented modding ability is central to the game's future, and I'm willing to bet some truly great work will come not too long after Civ's 3-4 month buzz dies down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
|
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Atahualpa: Good point. It's such a give and take. On the one hand, starting an epic game on a huge map really gives you a sense of the sweep of time, the grand battles, etc. But the AI simply can't keep up. On smaller maps, AI weaknesses aren't allowed to gather as much steam (usually), and as long as they have been programmed to have an aggressive opening build sequence, ICS does keep limited -- at least for some rather tense turns in the early going. Of course, this type of game doesn't tend to offer that grand sense of space feeling, but that's life. Compromise. As I've said elsewhere, and as you've said here, I think the unprecedented modding ability is central to the game's future, and I'm willing to bet some truly great work will come not too long after Civ's 3-4 month buzz dies down. |
I can only agree, though for me epic doesn't mean big, it means deep and I can have that on a small map as well.
A downside with smaller maps is that everything weighs a little bit more and with civ3s combat system I couldn't get too friendly. The RNG becomes more and more important the smaller the maps and the more you depend on the outcome of just one unit. I am looking forward to what civ4 can offer and I really think that smaller maps need more deterministic outcomes, so that it plays more like chess, because you cannot 50:50 out the RNG with masses that you don't have. That's a disadvantage. OTOH, these are still epic battles and the fate of your empire sometimes is just this one archer that either survives or dies. And it'd be a fun experience if it weren't for so much randomness.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Matches10
|
|
I am new here but I'm wondering if this debate couldn't simply be solved a bit with a modding here or there.
If I read correctly some people are a little irritated that in the beginnings of the game, if you don't expand and build cities like mad, you're at a distinct disadvantage. Might not there be a way to simply increase the negative effects things like number of cities and distance from the capitol have on the population of a city? Therefore, you make expansion over a large area of land more difficult due to more time and money spent on producing and maintaining the units needed to keep order in the farther reaches of a sprawling empire? You could expand as far as you want but certain advances and improvements (as the game moves along) make it easier for you to expand. Somehow one could effectively make it very difficult to have many cities far from the center before the development of the courthouse. You can build cities all you want but if you're lots of tiles away from your stronger cultural influences those become barely worth anything due to poor production lost to corruption/crime or whatever they're calling it now.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-09-2005 22:16
thats why
|
|