WFYABTA continued

[Ziggy]

6. It's not a fixed number. It slides a bit depending on your game score. If you are leading, you hit the wall a lot sooner. If you are trailing, they will cut you some slack.- Sirian

Hmm ok well thats good to know anyways, If I keep my score lower I can trade more in general and if its higher then I can trade less. Noted. A ballpark/baseline number would be appreciated though If you happen to know it.

As for the score thing is that relative? eg If I am in second place will I have hit the wall with 3rd place but prehaps not with 1st?

7. I'm not sure on the Pleased civs. I think it's an OFF SWITCH that triggers later, allowing you to have a higher relative score before they stop. Friendly Civs will continue to trade with you forever, but not monopoly techs, so usually your opportunities are limited and you have to stay on top of it to take advantage.- Sirian

Freindly civs will trade with you FOREVER? Now thats one I definately didn't know or expect and one that should make a few people happy. So if I make just one good friend I wont ever hit the wall (with him/her anyway)

9. A tech traded to or from anybody cannot be RETRADED on the same turn, nor can you trade for a tech "past" it. The "can't trade" are items that would violate the "can't trade past a traded tech" rule. That is, a tech whose prerequisite you just learned CANNOT be traded to you until the next turn. By comparison, "Will Not Trade" is something the AI won't trade because it doesn't like you, has a monopoly, is building a wonder from the tech, or has hit the WFYABTA wall with you..- Sirian

Ok that makes sense as the one I mentioned was meditation in a game where I had skipped all religious techs untill well into the AD's before finally picking up Mysticism. I was pretty certain It wasn't a monopoly
I assume the 'cant trade a tech you just accquired is for the AI's only yes? I hadn't noticed that we couldn't do it but I could just have never noticed?

Thanks for the info Sirian

[Qwack]

Dont mind my n00b opinion

I think that making the cap set using beakers is a bad idea, and would make the whole system completely 1-sided but in terms of the opposite strategy. Why I think this way... let me explain below..

Lets say I decide to do a depth first beeline towards civil service, and will use that to mop up all the previous techs. Now my guess is that the 6-7? techs you gain will be worth around 1200 beakers. Now consider someone doing breadth first research but gets lucky and gets Civil Service with a few civs still missing it. He notices a possible trade at machinery and pulls the trigger. Now which would you say was a bigger trade, the 6-7 ancient era techs worth 1200 beakers, or machinery worth 1200 beakers. I would probably say ancient era techs. The point is that multiple techs give multiple benefits, ignoring those benefits and just saying they are worth X amount of beakers is ignoring so many parts of the game. With a beaker system, it would make one decision overwhelmingly better in the early game, that is going straight to a specific tech and getting all the former techs from that 1 tech. The reason being because ancient era techs are worth so few beakers.

In conclusion, I think the current system allows for some choices between depth and breadth research. A system without a cap or a cap based on beakers only will make it way more 1-sided than it is currently.

[Bezhukov]

What I do in the early game is go deep first (usually Alpha/Drama to get the culture slider), then come back and mop up the cheap religious techs at last known prices (2/3 turn research), then make some multi-way trades for math, monarchy, and hopefully currency and metal. Leter on, I try to cultivate friendly relations with one or two civs (usually by cultivating common enemies), to make sure that tech trading opportunities stay open. I've rarely run into the "too advanced" limit.

[theGrimm]

Is Civ a strategy game or a role-playing game?

Playing civ solely from a strategy perspecive, one doesn't mind the civs "ganging up" to some extent. The point of the game is to beat the system, the opening position, and the variant rules. The enjoyment comes from beating the challenge, not necessarily from the realism of the challenge.

Playing solely from a role playing perspective, one wants a realistic experience. Balance is less important. Immersiveness is of utmost importance. And for the AI's to provide immersiveness, they need to appear as if they are trying to win. Not even, necessarily, by one of the standard vistory conditions. And while they cannot truly want to win, being creatures of 1's and 0's, they could be made to APPEAR to want to win.

Realistically, it looks as if this particular tech issue prevents it from being both, successfully. That's not a criticism of Civ 4, but of gaming in general. If the civ 4 AI's allow unlimited trading, or one of the other trading barriers discussed and rejected during civ 4 development, they become mere chew toys for an aggressive human player is is out to win the game and is playing for a win from the start. But in order to allow them to be competitive, some rules need to be introduced which make the game less immersive.

Consider another game as an example. Perhaps some of you have played Baldurs Gate II and the expansion? If you played a normal game, accepting the dice rolls you get, the stuff that happens, and roleplay your character, the normal game is pretty challenging and totally immersive (assuming that game is according to your taste). But if you start powergaming, and playing out of character (to get a better sword, perhaps), the game becomes too easy, and mods are introduced which up the challenge and also lower the immersiveness. And you're playing a different game.

I realise that one can, to some extend, play a role-playing version of a strategy game by introducing variants, but really, to a true role-player, that's just strategy game with different rules.

Is Civ a strategy game or a role-playing game? Personally, I slightly prefer a role playing game.

Final disclaimer: This post isn't intended to criticise what Civ 4 is or isn't, or what Civ 4 should or shouldn't be, but merely to raise the issue that different people want different things from a game.

I don't like American Football <dodges stones, rocks and a small mound of building rubble>, but I won't claim it's inferior to cricket (which would bore many of you to tears) Different strokes.

[Hacp]

Is Civ a strategy game or a role-playing game?

Playing civ solely from a strategy perspecive, one doesn't mind the civs "ganging up" to some extent. The point of the game is to beat the system, the opening position, and the variant rules. The enjoyment comes from beating the challenge, not necessarily from the realism of the challenge.

Playing solely from a role playing perspective, one wants a realistic experience. Balance is less important. Immersiveness is of utmost importance. And for the AI's to provide immersiveness, they need to appear as if they are trying to win. Not even, necessarily, by one of the standard vistory conditions. And while they cannot truly want to win, being creatures of 1's and 0's, they could be made to APPEAR to want to win.

Realistically, it looks as if this particular tech issue prevents it from being both, successfully. That's not a criticism of Civ 4, but of gaming in general. If the civ 4 AI's allow unlimited trading, or one of the other trading barriers discussed and rejected during civ 4 development, they become mere chew toys for an aggressive human player is is out to win the game and is playing for a win from the start. But in order to allow them to be competitive, some rules need to be introduced which make the game less immersive.

Consider another game as an example. Perhaps some of you have played Baldurs Gate II and the expansion? If you played a normal game, accepting the dice rolls you get, the stuff that happens, and roleplay your character, the normal game is pretty challenging and totally immersive (assuming that game is according to your taste). But if you start powergaming, and playing out of character (to get a better sword, perhaps), the game becomes too easy, and mods are introduced which up the challenge and also lower the immersiveness. And you're playing a different game.

I realise that one can, to some extend, play a role-playing version of a strategy game by introducing variants, but really, to a true role-player, that's just strategy game with different rules.

Is Civ a strategy game or a role-playing game? Personally, I slightly prefer a role playing game.

Final disclaimer: This post isn't intended to criticise what Civ 4 is or isn't, or what Civ 4 should or shouldn't be, but merely to raise the issue that different people want different things from a game.

I don't like American Football <dodges stones, rocks and a small mound of building rubble>, but I won't claim it's inferior to cricket (which would bore many of you to tears) Different strokes.

Your saying this on superbowl sunday.......

[theGrimm]

Your saying this on superbowl sunday.......

Put it down to one of three things:

-I'm an ignorant South African, and clearly don't know when Superbowl Sunday happens.
-I'm an idiot.
-I like to make an effective example.

I guess my Adv 3 report will be tarred and feathered

[Sirian]

Put it down to one of three things:

-I'm an ignorant South African, and clearly don't know when Superbowl Sunday happens.
-I'm an idiot.
-I like to make an effective example.

I guess my Adv 3 report will be tarred and feathered

Nah. We Yanks are generally indifferent to what the world thinks of us. This has its occasional down side, I admit, but it does allow us to "do our own thing" uninhibited, and that leads to stuff like creating the Civilization video game franchise, or launching communities that are not satisfied even with that and want to pile variants -n- stuff on top of it.


- Sirian

[killara]

*laughs & laughs* Kewl comment Sirian ;-)
& I'm a laid back Ost-rail-ee-en, who just accepts Civ4 and all it's strange internal mechanics (not really caring why it all happens or the mechanics / numbers coded into it) ... and plays the game as it is.
Just trying to balance short term gains & hopefully be around long enough to get those long term benefits - that's why it's a strategy game. *winks*

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Actually, the RB community provides a very nice sample ground for investigating various paramaters of civ.

Indeed! Plus, it provides a very nice crowd of people to have fruitful discussions about these investigations with.

Consider using depth first research to be first to a religion, liberalism, music or tanks (four different examples).
[...]
In all of these examples, depth first research more than pays for itself in terms of beakers.

I disagree with the "more than" part. In fact, that's exactly my point! In my view, the structure of the tech tree itself provides a fine balance between breadth-first and depth-first research. If I beeline to Civil Service, my macemen will have free reign for several turns. And yet, my cities will suffer from happiness problems because I had to skip Priesthood for temples and Monarchy for hereditary rule. And I've already experienced the disadvantage of making a beeline to Liberalism, as I got attacked with knights and grenadiers while all I had was macemen and longtbows. Every research choice comes with a cost which is very well balanced in my view, and I love it!

So deciding whether to do breadth-first or depth-first research is a choice between two equally strong options it seems, by tech tree design alone. But wait! ON TOP of this, there suddenly comes a new factor favoring breadth-first research: That the number of techs traded affect the WFYABTA limit more than the number of beakers. And yet I fail to see is where the counter-balancing factor for this is that favors depth-first research.


The WFYABTA limit was implemented to close some holes in the trading system, which I approve. But the way it has been implemented has side-effects that unbalance the tech tree. Making number of beakers (EDIT: not techs, as I had written earlier...) the deciding factor would still close the holes in the trading system WITHOUT breaking the research balance.

-Kylearan

EDIT: Meant number of beakers but wrote number of techs in last paragraph...

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Players need to learn:

While I agree that we still need to learn a lot, I also don't want to fall into the trap of "there's an imbalance in the game, so learn how to avoid it!". I remember all the complaints in the early days of Diablo II that the WW lance barb was overpowered, and how many people just replied "So what? Then don't use double-throw and throwing axes! Max WW and find yourself a lance instead!".

No, I don't think CIV is as broken as DII was. But I also think that the current system takes away some of my choices and could be improved, and that the answers of some people in this thread that I should play differently do not satisfy me.

* That there are a fixed number of trading opportunities, so EXPECT the door to slam on you, because it always will.

I know, expect, and like this. Your previous arguments that a cap on trading has to be in the game have actually convinced me. Again, it's the number of techs vs. beakers issue that is troubling me, and that the limit is game-wide (although this might indeed be impossible to fix without breaking other things).

* That the ability to make a trade does not make it a wise trade. Sometimes passing up a trade for a fully discounted, ancient tech, and researching it yourself, will keep the door open on a better trade later.

But researching these ancient techs myself will make me do breadth-first research again, which I didn't want to do in the first place! The idea of waiting 20 turns of investing 1000 beakers into an expensive tech without gaining any new building/civics/religious options in the meantime, while the others are putting their 1000 beakers into 4 cheaper techs, immediately gaining their advantages from them, was to be able to use my 1000-beaker tech to trade for their 4 250 beaker techs.

Doing purely breadth-first research will lose you some (not all!) "known tech" discount, but filling in prerequisits first will make up for that some. It's hard to compare these two, but I'm sure reaching the WFYABTA limit earlier by doing depth-first research is more significant than losing a bit of "known tech" discount.

As I said in my reply to theGrimm, I think the tech tree in itself is balanced very well already, but the number of techs vs. beakers issue makes this lopsided.

* That what a tech is really worth has more to do with what you can do with it than what its beaker value may claim. Don't overthink it, don't get caught up in theory and conceptualization.

Again, see my reply to theGrimm for the beaker vs. real worth issue. And I don't get caught up in theory; in fact I have found this imbalance in practical play first, and then did some thinking why I felt I got the shaft when doing depth-first research.

-Kylearan