I'm out for now

[jsb]

Very true, but the AI hardly being much of a challenge also allowed for you to play anyway you wanted to and win. If a modern version of the game is to be any challenging a certain balance is needed, otherwise it is far more likely that it's one of the four AI players that is lucky and snowballs out of control with zero interaction from the player. That's rarely much fun.

I'm all for keeping unbalances that give flavor and sense of adventure  (I love roguelikes and permadeath), it's just a matter of finding the sweet spots for each system where it becomes enjoyable. Also providing as much customization as possible to the player is a big thing for a games longevity as different players enjoy different experiences.

Mom is just so many moving parts that I'm frankly blown away that this project has come so far and is so good. Some serious dedication from Seravy and lot's of input from you guys no doubt.

[crusader.mike]

Very true, but the AI hardly being much of a challenge also allowed for you to play anyway you wanted to and win.

Not anymore :-)


[quote pid='657332' dateline='1514188169']
I'm all for keeping unbalances that give flavor and sense of adventure  (I love roguelikes and permadeath), it's just a matter of finding the sweet spots for each system where it becomes enjoyable. Also providing as much customization as possible to the player is a big thing for a games longevity as different players enjoy different experiences.
[/quote]

I'd say Normal/Advanced games allow you to play most of styles. Just keep an eye on Myrran wizard, especially if he is a sorcerer -- runaway sorcerer will make you rage quit. :-) In fact for relaxing game which aims to do late combat -- play on Normal.

Empire building style works only if you don't let AI to snowball. Don't care how -- early conquest is the easiest way to put brakes on that. Berserkers seem to be the ultimate tool for that. I need to try it with high elves on low level -- bunch of Elven lords or pegasai? Adamantium pegasai are very strong in packs.

[jsb]

I definitely understand your point, a normal game might be enjoyable played suboptimal (it's sure a big improvement over having no real opposition at all, like in the original game) It feels strange to have late game spells and units by design if you're not going to use them.

I've only been playing on Expert so far and it's challenging, but also a mad scramble to do damage to snowballing AI before it's too late. I will try a game on advanced next and see how different it feels.

[Seravy]

but it feels like some mechanic that rewards early economic expansion but then limits linear growth from too many cities would give the best chances for games staying relevant into the late mid-game.

Some examples? I can't imagine anything like that within the current game rules. It's also counterintuitive, more cities SHOULD be better. (also if growth would be worse, why bother instead of conquering everything with early stuff? The later the enemy gets improved spells and units the less need is for me to have those.)

If AI snowballing is a too large problem, I don't think we have any other way to fix it than through AI itself. In particular, the AI could look at the graph and "oh, I'm 3 times stronger than anyone else, okay I switch half my cities to produce nothing for a few turns to make it fair". The hard part in that is, setting the condition that triggers it (and agreeing on it being necessary, as some people demand the AI should never hold back which also makes sense. Might be best if a feature like this would be optional.). If it is triggered by the relative strength of players then it'll trigger earlier if everyone is left behind (due to some 3 way wars on arcanus or whatever reason), but if it's triggered by absolute strength then a resource rich or larger map would not work well...

[jsb]

I'm probably way in over my head to start suggesting new mechanics, but in reality of course, larger is always less efficient owing to bureaucracy and the like. The Civ-series (I am thinking specifically about Civ 5 here) deals with this through more cities generating unhappiness, thus being less and less useful. 

I agree the issue is probably much better solved by tweaking the AI, and optional settings is always a plus since not everyone has the same preferences.

On a related note: how about making research even more city-dependant? In my last two games only around a third or less of my RP has come from buildings. In my current game I have almost 30 cities but they still don't generate more than around 300 RP atm, and my power base is 1100+

[Seravy]

Civ 4+ is so unfun I deleted it after 2 days. Having more cities and population being punished by the game was one of the main contributing factors to that. The "overcrowded, +6 unhappiness" triggering on population 6 when the city had over 20 tiles to work on was just insane.

In most of my games in this version, I had roughly equal power and research (despite being High Elf) so maybe you're playing with power boosting retorts or settings? Or didn't build the research buildings, idk.
30 cities, should be generating 30*27=810 RP if they can build every building.

[jsb]

I used to think the same way about Civ 5, then I played MP and changed my view a bit. Never played 4 so I have no idea. MP uses mods to change a lot of the mechanics as well, leading to strategies ranging from 1 city challenge to 20+ city horde empires. Still, the base mechanic does limit headless expansion and conquering too much neutrals or enemy territory before your empire can "digest" it. 

Anyways ..

My current game is OP Myrran dwarf with Cult Leader and Omniscient (4 chaos books) - so yeah, my power is much higher than normal. Still, spending my power on research is the only way I've been keeping up with two equally powerful Arcanus wizards.

I've spent some more resources on research buildings the last 15+ turns and my base RP is up to around 400, in the same time though my power is up to 1500+

[Seravy]

Well, dwarves don't get Sage's Guilds and Wizard's guilds, so they only have 12 out of the 27 research available for "normal" races. That's only 44% of the normal amount.

[teelaurila]

If AI snowballing is a too large problem, I don't think we have any other way to fix it than through AI itself. In particular, the AI could look at the graph and "oh, I'm 3 times stronger than anyone else, okay I switch half my cities to produce nothing for a few turns to make it fair". 

How about all the other AIs ganging up on the leader once they figure out one is about to become too big? I understand it's easier said then done, but certainly would sound better.

"Snowball" is the only way to make the game truly loseable, without which the player will soon gain illusion immunity against the smoke'n'mirrors "challenge". So it needs to be there. But the player being the only one who really cares is certainly one big part of the problem.

[crusader.mike]

Here is a radical idea: disable research slider -- there no good reason why controlling power-producing node should increase speed of research. Research is the result of work of scholars, this should tie into city sizes (and count), not amount of nodes under your control. You'll probably have to rebalance spells found in treasure (having them present only in magical towers?) or maybe find "research points" instead? I.e. "you found old druidic manuscript, your understanding of Nature magic improved"

Another, even crazier idea -- having two casting skills, one for overland, another -- for combat... maybe not completely independent of each other, but you should get the drift. Having ability to cast Bless without interrupting Crusade. Or even better -- casting is instant, but preparations take time -- i.e. you could contribute into preparation of multiple spells (lets say no more than 2 at the same time -- space in your tower is not infinite), but when preps are done -- you could cast it at any moment.