 |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
annoyed
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Falconius
|
 |
Pleasant Hills, PA
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
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!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ksim3000
|
|
[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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
annoyed
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2002 03:59
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.
|