Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Civ II game a decade old

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#61

Post by danielweber »

jonnathanson wrote: post #52

Fascinating, and wonderful to see others are out there who are weird like me, and who will actually attempt to extend Civilization games over extremely long periods. I have a Civ4 game that I've been playing for about 4 straight years now, and admittedly the file has gotten so big that it periodically taxes my system resources to their limits (Unfortunately, Civ4 suffers from poor memory management and is fairly leak…

I don't know Civ4's AI routines, but it might be such that after a certain year passes, it decides that the only way to stop the human player is total war. Before that it can be less aggressive.

I have a game of Civ1 somewhere where it takes about a half-hour to get through each turn because each city demands attention. I'd love to modify the ROM to skip the animations.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#62

Post by nik_0_0 »

zokier wrote: post #40
_b8r0 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you haven't read 1984... I'd also recommend that you read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World for a counterpoint. The sad part is that the way the world is going appears to be a mix of the worst elements of the two. Of course, the perpetual war in 1984 was a big part of the story, but because we only ever see the world from characters living in Airstrip One, for all we know the war could've been over years ago.

Brave New World definately is a good pair for 1984. http://www.totalitariers.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Brave... (yes, the message of that image is debatable, but i found it intresting anyways)

I've read these types of posts hundreds of times, and they never seem truthful, but here is mine: I just want to say thank you for that image. I would like to hear your thoughts on your note, why do you find the message is debatable, and if you know where the image is from? It says the text is from "Amusing Ourselves to Death" which has just made it to #1 on my to-read list.

I found the apt summary of Huxley's points (plus the jarring images) resonated strongly with my current views on my life, which prompted me to really do some self-reflecting and organize myself. In addition, it vibes very strongly with the "create, not consume" mantra found here on HN.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#63

Post by DanBC »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #56
jonnathanson wrote: post #52

Fascinating, and wonderful to see others are out there who are weird like me, and who will actually attempt to extend Civilization games over extremely long periods. I have a Civ4 game that I've been playing for about 4 straight years now, and admittedly the file has gotten so big that it periodically taxes my system resources to their limits (Unfortunately, Civ4 suffers from poor memory management and is fairly leak…

>The other problem is that the AI fights total wars by default. It will never engage in a limited conflict. This is why I don't play civ. Total war AIs are a bizarre choice in a strategy game. I dislike it when games are setup in a way where I'm the only one thinking strategy and the AI opponents are there to give me a sense of action. Total war in the real world is rare. >Or that one possibly victory condition in a…

Balance of Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_(video_game))

The game for PC shipped with a MS Windows runtime environment, for an early version of Windows. (2.x?)

I remember it being really hard.

(http://pc.ign.com/articles/090/090970p1.html)

Such a game made today could be brilliant.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#64

Post by sid05 »

I'm not familiar with Civilization resources so how would it be possible to perpetually build Nukes ? Wouldn't there be an energy cap or is there some sort of tech to cotinually generate the needed resources.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#65

Post by pacaro »

pooriaazimi wrote: post #35
_b8r0 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you haven't read 1984... I'd also recommend that you read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World for a counterpoint. The sad part is that the way the world is going appears to be a mix of the worst elements of the two. Of course, the perpetual war in 1984 was a big part of the story, but because we only ever see the world from characters living in Airstrip One, for all we know the war could've been over years ago.

I haven't read anything in this thread yet, but my eye caught 1984 and wanted to second your recommendation. Brave New World is without a doubt, one of the best books I've ever read. Hard to believe it was written 80 years ago. I like to listen to audiobooks (when commuting), and BNW's audiobook (produced by BBC) was also great: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012QED5Y

In the same vein, "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin should be mentioned in the same breath...

http://www.amazon.com/This-Perfect-Day-A-Novel/dp/160598129X...

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#66

Post by philwelch »

kristianc wrote: post #48
philwelch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also that one guy, Julius something, who didn't want to give back control ;)

I don't see what that has to do with the democratic peace, which is about nations propensity to declare war on each other.

I was commenting on the Roman practice of appointing a dictator. See my direct response to you for some thoughts on the democratic peace theory.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#67

Post by stusmall »

sid05 wrote: post #64

I'm not familiar with Civilization resources so how would it be possible to perpetually build Nukes ? Wouldn't there be an energy cap or is there some sort of tech to cotinually generate the needed resources.

In the game each tile gives some type of resource. If I remember right, you had food, shields (productivity) and trade (money). A farm land would produce a lot of food but little trade but a mine would produce lots of gold but no food. You gather this amount of resource each turn but it doesn't tax the land at all. Nukes just cost a certain amount of productivity so as long as you hold land you can keep building them. The game isn't really meant to last much past modern times so the model kind of breaks down in a game like OPs. Its worth noting that in later games special resources were added to help make it a little more realistic. Like you had to have a uranium mind somewhere to produce nukes. It lead to really cool strategies, like wars for oil or iron.

The reason why he had world resources dwindling at all is because its possible for global warming to cause sea levels to rise and take away bits of land and in the parts of land that don't sink their type can change (plains can become deserts, jungles to forests).

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#68

Post by cpeterso »

renegadedev wrote: post #55

We look ahead at 3991 AD and find it to be depressing. I've always wondered how past civilizations (Greeks, Egyptians, etc) would find our modern day civilization.

And looking forward, I wonder what future civilizations think about their future. What kind of science fiction do people on Star Trek read? It's a convenient cop-out that everyone on the Enterprise is a fan of mid-20th century pop culture or Shakespeare.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#69

Post by honestcoyote »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #39
damon_c wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the higher levels, specifically Deity, it seems that there are some variables set in the AI's favor that go beyond normal game play manipulations... Or maybe I am just misdiagnosing my own failures :(

Yes. Civ games have never been known for their stellar AI. The way they keep the AI competitive at higher levels is to brutally cheat by getting free techs and units at the start and a beneficial modifier to their production and research. Considering how quick the AI needs to run (you don't want "end turn" taking forever) and how complex the game is I can appreciate its simplicity, it is disappointing though. I have…

GalCiv2, with the expansions, has a very good AI and one which isn't entirely focused on total war. There are options to dedicate more CPU time to the AI to increase the difficulty. It's possibly the best AI I've seen for 4x games.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#70

Post by bdunbar »

jonnathanson wrote: post #58
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The other problem is that the AI fights total wars by default. It will never engage in a limited conflict. This is why I don't play civ. Total war AIs are a bizarre choice in a strategy game. I dislike it when games are setup in a way where I'm the only one thinking strategy and the AI opponents are there to give me a sense of action. Total war in the real world is rare. >Or that one possibly victory condition in a…

"This is why I don't play civ. Total war AIs are a bizarre choice in a strategy game. I dislike it when games are setup in a way where I'm the only one thinking strategy and the AI opponents are there to give me a sense of action. Total war in the real world is rare." Agreed 100%. To me, it seems silly -- not to mention cynical and fatalistic -- that the sole purpose of diplomacy in Civilization games is to add a str…

Agreed 100%. To me, it seems silly -- not to mention cynical and fatalistic -- that the sole purpose of diplomacy in Civilization games is to add a strategic dimension to warmaking.

Out here in the real world, war is a continuation of politics, by other means.

Same thing, really, as your description of Civ II. The goal of diplomacy/warmaking is for one's side to come out ahead of the other.

See Clausewitz, Machiavelli.

Post reply on HN