-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Civilization V |OT| of Losing My Religion, And I Feel Fine...
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
So, balancing city-states.
Almost everyone agrees Maritime are too powerful, you simply ally yourselves with them, replace all your farms with trading posts, and can now buy any military units/cultural buildings you need. So I'd like to propose a simple change. When the world is being generated, cultural city-states start with happiness resources, militaristic city-states start with strategic resources, and maritime city-states start with food resources. This gives you a real reason to invest in some of the other city-states, while reducing maritime city-states down to just their food bonus, in a rather elegant way.
Almost everyone agrees Maritime are too powerful, you simply ally yourselves with them, replace all your farms with trading posts, and can now buy any military units/cultural buildings you need. So I'd like to propose a simple change. When the world is being generated, cultural city-states start with happiness resources, militaristic city-states start with strategic resources, and maritime city-states start with food resources. This gives you a real reason to invest in some of the other city-states, while reducing maritime city-states down to just their food bonus, in a rather elegant way.
Ysiadmihi said:
Not all city states have luxury resources, nor city states always link the required luxury resources especially if they are at war. Plus the luxury resource they provide may not always be the one that you don't have, and you'd have to be in the allied status to get the resource in the first place which costs a bare minimum of 500 to start with.
platypotamus
Member
Good question, I haven't played as them yet though, so I'm not sure. I can't remember their order from previous Civs.
Open Source
Banned
syllogism said:
I disagree - I think annexed cities are just too bad.
FutureZombie
Banned
Perisan Golden Age bonus + Taj Mahal = 49 turn golden age. And with other boosters, I'm sure it could be even more ridiculous.
platypotamus
Member
zoku88 said:
Washington should have Philly then, right?
FutureZombie said:
That plus going for culture victory and a focus on great people could get you an infinite golden age, methinks. I had a game going the other day where I was producing a great person every 5 turns or so, in addition to having city states gift them to me.
Ok, I've determined something about the AI. Specifically, part of how it gets mad about people going to war.
If AI 1 goes to war against you, and you defend yourself, the other AIs keep track of how that will affect everybody. Will that hurt trade with people they also like, and make money off? Would it benefit them if they helped you? Would it benefit them if they fucked you up the ass? Will they be seen as warlike by other Civs if they help you destroy another nation?
They recognize things that you are superior in. If you have a strong economy, they would love to trade with you to benefit from that. If you have a strong military, they may want to be your friend just in case shit happens, or alternatively, they may see you as a threat and conspire against you.
The reason everyone might declare war at the same time on is because on their own, they each see you as the biggest threat. In that they all see you as the biggest threat to victory, they will ask others to form their own pacts of secrecy against you. This isn't Civ 4 with +2 to relations from years of peace bullshit. This is stopping your opponent before they can achieve victory, especially before you become too big a threat.
You were attacked by one civ, so you wipe them out? Making the war too costly for the attacking civ is often more than enough to stop the war. Wiping out their civ wasn't needed. Just take a little, not everything.
That is the difference between being seen as a peacekeeper or a dictator, the allies or the axis. If you wipe out that other Civ, they will be especially mad because you just said "if they look to take the Rhineland, then not only will we fight back, we will have Germany cease to exist."
You just eliminated the old Nazis, and now, YOU are the Nazis. Time to stop the Nazis again!
Just because someone has a pact of secrecy and/or cooperation with you, doesn't mean you are their lifetime ally. If you get a pact of secrecy against Civ 2 with Civ 1, that doesnt mean KAY GUYS let's go annihilate them! It means "we will work together as they are currently a threat to myself. Don't go overboard."
If you think it means that, then they weigh the benefits of eliminating one threat that was larger versus preserving the goodwill of everyone else by washing their hands of what you just did. By yourself making you a larger threat, they by proxy would be a threat as well.
It's not that they don't want that guy gone. It's that they don't want a huge target on their back.
Everything about Civ 5 Diplomacy I learned from the Israel threads in the OT. True Story.
If AI 1 goes to war against you, and you defend yourself, the other AIs keep track of how that will affect everybody. Will that hurt trade with people they also like, and make money off? Would it benefit them if they helped you? Would it benefit them if they fucked you up the ass? Will they be seen as warlike by other Civs if they help you destroy another nation?
They recognize things that you are superior in. If you have a strong economy, they would love to trade with you to benefit from that. If you have a strong military, they may want to be your friend just in case shit happens, or alternatively, they may see you as a threat and conspire against you.
The reason everyone might declare war at the same time on is because on their own, they each see you as the biggest threat. In that they all see you as the biggest threat to victory, they will ask others to form their own pacts of secrecy against you. This isn't Civ 4 with +2 to relations from years of peace bullshit. This is stopping your opponent before they can achieve victory, especially before you become too big a threat.
You were attacked by one civ, so you wipe them out? Making the war too costly for the attacking civ is often more than enough to stop the war. Wiping out their civ wasn't needed. Just take a little, not everything.
That is the difference between being seen as a peacekeeper or a dictator, the allies or the axis. If you wipe out that other Civ, they will be especially mad because you just said "if they look to take the Rhineland, then not only will we fight back, we will have Germany cease to exist."
You just eliminated the old Nazis, and now, YOU are the Nazis. Time to stop the Nazis again!
Just because someone has a pact of secrecy and/or cooperation with you, doesn't mean you are their lifetime ally. If you get a pact of secrecy against Civ 2 with Civ 1, that doesnt mean KAY GUYS let's go annihilate them! It means "we will work together as they are currently a threat to myself. Don't go overboard."
If you think it means that, then they weigh the benefits of eliminating one threat that was larger versus preserving the goodwill of everyone else by washing their hands of what you just did. By yourself making you a larger threat, they by proxy would be a threat as well.
It's not that they don't want that guy gone. It's that they don't want a huge target on their back.
Everything about Civ 5 Diplomacy I learned from the Israel threads in the OT. True Story.
natkingcoleslaw
Neo Member
Request for modders, and i'm sure this isn't new, from a newbie. Can the russians have bear cavalry?
Yes.Jintor said:
People look at the surface of the decisions that it makes. But it doesn't make decisions just based on sheer randomness. There is a reason. It largely thinks about threats. If you and AI 1 are somewhat weaker than AI 2, and AI 2 is aggressive, AI 1 will see AI 2 as the bigger threat.
If you fight back against AI 2 if it Declares War on you, but do not eliminate AI 2, AI 1 will not think you acted in an especially aggressive manner, especially if you trade the cities you capture afterward, right away.
If you steamroll over AI 2 and erase it from existence, you just became the biggest threat. You were useful until you became too powerful and showed patterns of extreme aggression. Wiping out a Civ, even in Self Defense is near the top of the list, right near Nukes.
The only reason I don't have the whole world at my throat after I wiped out a Civ is because I'm too powerful for one of them to take on their own and they are uneasy about fighting me, and don't have friends to help, or they face much more immediate threats right on their borders that are bigger threats.
Ember128 said:
Civ V AI is gamey, a lot of people know that. But then because they're strictly just that, it makes less sense to cooperate with them or build relationships because there's no inherent meaning to it, unless you plan to not win the game. The most obvious example would to revive a civilization from death just to have them hate you a turn or two later because you're winning the game. That doesn't make them smarter or more complex, it just makes them easily predictable and the only lesson that you should learn is to never rely on them.
And this. I don't think you're judging the AI correctly from trading cities. You can trade any city, to any civ located anywhere on the map, for a lot of gold and resources. That's why you can currently abuse this by making settlers, building useless cities, then trading it to the AI for a significant surplus.
Of course all that doesn't really matter as long as the AI is still terrible at playing the game itself.
FutureZombie
Banned
Can we all agree that domination is the most difficult path to victory? I'd rank the victory types this way:
1) Diplomatic: Basically just giving money to city-states and staying alive long enough for the UN.
2A) Science: You can back into this one if you decide to change victory focus, but it still takes some time and good defense.
2B) Cultural: If you get the few key wonders built, and have some defense, you can pull out a victory. You could debate whether this is more difficult than science. I'm guessing it's much harder to do in a multiplayer game.
4) Domination: Can be a logistical nightmare on many maps. You really have to have your cities focused, and there is a lot of timing involved. By far the most difficult way to win.
1) Diplomatic: Basically just giving money to city-states and staying alive long enough for the UN.
2A) Science: You can back into this one if you decide to change victory focus, but it still takes some time and good defense.
2B) Cultural: If you get the few key wonders built, and have some defense, you can pull out a victory. You could debate whether this is more difficult than science. I'm guessing it's much harder to do in a multiplayer game.
4) Domination: Can be a logistical nightmare on many maps. You really have to have your cities focused, and there is a lot of timing involved. By far the most difficult way to win.
FutureZombie said:
I would put domination at the top. Playing on King and Emperor, around the time I slingshot to riflemen, I pretty much have to choose not to go for domination. It is the easiest victory for me. If the AI has coastal capitals, you can end the game in a single turn with well placed ships and blitz riflemen. Diplomatic is technically easier, but you have to wait so long to get there. On an aggressive playthrough, I will dominate my continent before I have left longswordsmen. After that, given how stupid the AI is when it comes to naval warfare, it is easy to stage independent sieges near their capitals, even if they are inland.
I have actually stopped going for the domination victory, as it was how I won my first four games. I was winning well before I got to modern military. So I deliberately did Ghandi's challenge, then did a Space Race with Catherine and a Diplomatic victory with Japan.
Open Source
Banned
Ember128 said:
One big flaw inherent to Civ is that it can't be very simmy, since it is a game with several individual players striving for a board game-style victory.
I think they should split it into 2 different games: one the epic single player, more sim/RPGish - realistic, and concrete rather than abstract, and the other a multiplayer board game that is simpler and faster than the current incarnation of the game.
That might be more credit that the AI is worth, but I am seeing the general pattern emerge where, yes, if someone declares war on me, then I decide to abandon my plans and just either raze them down to the ground or beat them until they give me a ton of their gold and gpt in the peace treaty, yes, the other civs get ticked and want to conspire against me.Ember128 said:
I've only really played on Prince and above, but they really, really need to make combat and city capturing much more difficult after the ancient era. I've only ever had maybe two problems capturing a city or whittling down it's defenses -- with only warriors and archers as my only military options. It's hardly a challenge when everything but the capital city can be solved with one artillery unit and a couple of riflemen/infantry. Of course, this is on prince, but I have a personal problem playing with cheating AI rather than smarter AI. (or ones that could be better with their armies). Why can't I just have an AI that makes smarter decisions but doesn't get resource and tech bonuses?
Open Source
Banned
When it comes to AI behavior, people tend to see patterns in randomness and attribute dumb moves to some complex intelligence.
If you really do have good AI, you need to communicate it to players in ways they can understand. In some cases this is hard to do, but in Civ, it should be easy. You just have the AI leader (or their own foreign adviser) tell them.
Civ either doesn't do a very good job of that, or the AI is in fact full of randomness and dumb moves.
If you really do have good AI, you need to communicate it to players in ways they can understand. In some cases this is hard to do, but in Civ, it should be easy. You just have the AI leader (or their own foreign adviser) tell them.
Civ either doesn't do a very good job of that, or the AI is in fact full of randomness and dumb moves.
FutureZombie
Banned
You can't defend an AI that continually attacks a city with one unit despite failing every time. And if they're not actually attacking the city, and just trying to walk through the area, that's almost even more indefensible.
Zero Hero
Member
The giant death robot is no joke. I wish I could have seen the faces of Montezuma's people when that thing rose from the ocean while they are still using sticks for spears. The GDR coupled with 2 stealth bombers are devastating. I didn't plan on a domination victory, but I might as well go for it.
First DLC details:
Via Joystiq
source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/18/civilization-5-welcomes-mongols-and-babylonians-as-dlc/
Via Joystiq
source: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/18/civilization-5-welcomes-mongols-and-babylonians-as-dlc/
MrMephistoX
Gold Member
Zero Hero said:
Agreed, I miss my Giant Death Robot...first time I've played CIV and soon after building one I proceeded to launch a Nuclear missile right on top of him
Friendly fire FTL.steadfast said:
Holy shit I am excite, the two races I've been craving the most for Civ 5 are the Mongols and the Norse, really happy to see them being added. Also, while I doubt I'll buy it, I'm glad to see they're making Babylon available to people, it'll be nice to have the option.
O rly? I don't think the AI is that advanced that recognizes shit and jiggles. Besides, when you offer it a peace treaty upon it's own defeat, how come it never accepts it for me, without asking some gold too? I don't think the AI recognizes that I am superior.Ember128 said:
Also, another stupid thing it does is build random cities just around the borders and declare war for "warmongering", when it clearly is lacking a military (I have the strongest and it has the worst.) And next turn after everyone else declares war on me! Priorities you say? hardly. AI doesn't recognize friends.
Don't get into the the impression of illusion that being the AI. It always follows clear commands: Too close? -> War.
Colkate said:
Oh noes. DLC invade my civ!
steadfast said:
Awesum. It was pretty obvious that the mongols were going to be added as they did not exist as a city state. Speaking of which, which other historical nations are conspicuous by their absence that you guys can think of? I would say tons of American ones, like Inca, Maya, Sioux, Apache, etc., as well as the Spanish and Byzantine Empire.
Open Source said:
diplomacy AI is not working as intended. But there is brilliant bits of logic at play, but it's not cohesive as it is bugged or just not complete.
I'm just really surprised they released the game in this state. On the Qt3 post, Jon casually mentions overhauling diplomacy like we were all in some large beta test no one told us about. It seems like 2K really should have let Firaxis apply the 1 to 2 months of polish the game needed.
I blame 2K for it. And I really enjoy Civ5 for the most part. The obvious bugs and things being broken that takes mediocre players only a few days to figure out shouldn't be there though.
steadfast said:
I wonder if the $4.99 will be the pricing structure for all of the DLC? Seems like a fair bit over-priced unless they're going to do multiple Civs per pack. I'm kind of obsessed with Civ so I'll buy regardless but I would think $2 per Civ would be a solid price and would sell quick. I think most people are going to think twice if it goes $5 per civ.
$5 for a 3 pack of Civs would be heavenly though.
Hopefully though they'll continue this free civ train that they started for the mongols. The free update structure has worked very well for Valve hopefully the Civ team follows suit. Although, I doubt Firaxis is worried about the longevity of a Civ game! :lol
Here are some shots from my latest game using the ICS. (Infinite city strategy) Sulla over on realms beyond gave me the idea in a recent playthrough he typed up. He does an infinitely better job describing the how-to in this strategy, so if you are interested, read up on his site.
The basic idea is to use filler cities and cap their growth. You take advantage of the order social policy tree and net the invaluable +5 hammer. When combined with magical maritime food and a few wonders and other social policies, your simple filler cities look like the ones bellow; very capable of turning 25+ beakers per turn.
As you can see, there is nothing outside of these cities. They are focusing on specialists, have a few key buildings (monument, library, coliseum, market, bank, university) The coliseum makes up for their happiness penalty, and as you can see they stand fine on their own. I put these in every possible area. At this stage, my last turn before winning the Diplomatic victory, I have 21 cities. I took advantage of Hiawatha's awesome ability to use forests as roads/trade routes. My total road maintenance was 8 at this point, and all of my cities are networked by land.
Below are my cities sorted by hammer output.
Below are my cities sorted byresearch culture output. (I meant to capture science, but must have mis-clicked) You get the idea though.
As you can see, the final techs are nothing when you are putting out +1000 beakers per turn.
The game was played on an Earth map, Large, King difficulty, all default settings. I never went to war.
That is 1031 beakers per turn, and 305 gold per turn while not in a golden age. If anyone wants to poke around in the save, PM me and I can email it to you so you can see how I got to be in this state.
The basic idea is to use filler cities and cap their growth. You take advantage of the order social policy tree and net the invaluable +5 hammer. When combined with magical maritime food and a few wonders and other social policies, your simple filler cities look like the ones bellow; very capable of turning 25+ beakers per turn.
As you can see, there is nothing outside of these cities. They are focusing on specialists, have a few key buildings (monument, library, coliseum, market, bank, university) The coliseum makes up for their happiness penalty, and as you can see they stand fine on their own. I put these in every possible area. At this stage, my last turn before winning the Diplomatic victory, I have 21 cities. I took advantage of Hiawatha's awesome ability to use forests as roads/trade routes. My total road maintenance was 8 at this point, and all of my cities are networked by land.
Below are my cities sorted by hammer output.
Below are my cities sorted by
As you can see, the final techs are nothing when you are putting out +1000 beakers per turn.
The game was played on an Earth map, Large, King difficulty, all default settings. I never went to war.
That is 1031 beakers per turn, and 305 gold per turn while not in a golden age. If anyone wants to poke around in the save, PM me and I can email it to you so you can see how I got to be in this state.
There is a great Deity succession game running on CivFanatics. Sulla and a capable crew are 70 turns in playing as the Ottomans. If you want to see some Civ skill at work, check it out here.
Similar threads
- Poll