![]() ![]() Every victory condition has a 'tacked on' kind of feel, where you can tell that they were designed separately. Its bad game design, though its the same bad game design we've seen for years. They are fun to do in single player, but in an honest match where players are actually trying to win no one is going to sit there building resorts at the expense of a military force. Culture is close, but the (# of civ/150) coefficient for forieng tourism effectively makes it only viable until the end game.Īll of the other victory conditions are crap. Science is not, as you have to wait until the end even if you are miles ahead of everyone else by mid game. What we need, is an alternative victory that is not about the relative advantage you have. and you have to wait into end game to launch the space projects. ![]() The tourism accumulates too slowly even if I rushed culture district ASAP. This, however, still doesn't work even if my army is the largest, because currently EVERY victory condition (except for religion) takes too long to achieve. I tried to play for culture victory WHILE building up a strong army, but only for defensive purposes. If everyone plays for some other type of victory, then you find it profitable to deviate and conquer everyone else before they reach their culture/science/religion goal.įor a few games I've been trying to break this equilibrium. If everyone plays for Dom victory, you cannot deviate and try another path, because this will make you an easy target for the closest aggressor. You won't ever be able to control what other people do and how they play, but you can still beat them with a non-domination strategy.Ĭlick to expand.Because it is the only Nash Equilibrium of the game. If that's the case I'd suggest focusing more on the subject of the best ways to defend, dissuading people from attacking you, defending with a minimum viable force while continuing to econ, etc. It sounds to me like you might just be tired of fighting war after war every game and are looking to build stuff in peace. I think almost every random public FFA with significant skill imbalances should or could end in a domination win. Unless people are familiar with who they are playing with, chances are they have no idea who's good and who's not. So even if there 4 equally good players in a game, whoever conquers the 2 weaker players now has a big advantage over the remaining 3 opponents. The problem is how often does that actually happen (where players are at similar skill levels)? There isn't some ranked matchmaking on offer in Civ, with bronze league players playing other bronze players. Imagine being in a 6-player FFA and no players are an easy mark (as in easy to conquer) - if the other 5 players are going for domination and you can defend yourself, a tourism victory is suddenly optimal and probably a relative cakewalk. The other victory types become preferable and optimal when you are in a game with players of comparable skill and domination turns into a hopeless 3500 year slug-fest of flushing production down the drain. It's just the name of the game and basic strategy. You only get to have your tourism or space win if you can defend yourself and stop someone else's domination win. ![]() Domination trumps each of the other victory conditions, so it is the first victory condition. The civ 5 community balance patch came close to resolving the issue with one of the policies granting free military units when cities reached certain population thresholds but in general building military is an opportunity cost but it pays off the biggest dividends.īuilding a spearman can protect me, building a science district may pay off later but isn't going to stop the invasion right now.Īctually, the above statements are correct. ![]() So you use your army, what else would you do? This in turn leads to the fact that human players NEVER GIVE UP and NEVER SURRENDER and before you know it, either everyone else is dead/gave up or you are dead/given up. You build an army to defend yourself but the sheer virtue of building an army means you now need to either use that army (because you spent hammers on it) or you wasted time and are at a disadvantage. This leads too the issue single player has. If you play for the long haul like a science victory then you become a runaway train and in civ, only 1 player can win. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |