Live data from Hacker News

Civ II game a decade old

reddit.com

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#121

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…

Well, there's 3 diplomacy phases: Phase 1, when everyone ignores you. Phase 2, when everyone is friendly. Phase 3, total war. You go through #1 and #2 quickly, then all that remains is #3.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"?

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#122

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…

In the board game Twilight Struggle, a game about the Cold War (& #1 on boardgamegeek.com), you lose if you escalate matters to defcon 1 and cause a nuclear war. A big part of the strategy, though, is knowing how to cause your opponent to inadvertently trigger defcon 1 ( http://twilightstrategy.com/2011/12/12/general-strategy-defc... ).

Oooh that looks good, thanks!

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#123
post #99
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope we've come at least a bit further since the renaissance. Diplomacy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game - indeed it rarely is in the real world. War, on the other hand, is very much that. So in that respect, war is the failure of diplomacy, not the continuation of it.

War is actually a negative sum game today; even "winning" you lose a lot. It's not clear to me if this was ever different for anything larger than Viking raiding parties, though.

US-Mexican War, US-Spanish war. US came out far ahead in bt cases, iirc.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#124

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 recently started playing Civ V, and was surprised at how the AI approached the first war I had started against me: the AI made a really lucrative offer in exchange for right of passage through my territory, then moved a bunch of units in and declared war on me. After losing the initial wave of units and the second invading wave without any territory changing hands, the AI asked for a cease-fire. When I declined, th…

I'm in a game of Civ V now and experienced the exact same thing you described.

Playing as India and going for a few big cities and a mass cultural strategy, but I keep getting dragged into a war with the civ to the south. Keeps backstabbing me, attacking, losing most of his units, giving me the bank for peace and 5 turns later repeating the whole thing.

Problem is, I just can't support a military large enough to defeat the civ outright - so I'm now just building a line of forts along my border and leaving my army there. Waste of money, but I have no other choice.

Frustrating, but I appreciate that I'm being forced into do something I don't want to do rather then blindly following my preferred strategy to an easy victory.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#125
post #98

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…

In Civ 4 the different leaders have personality. Ghandi is peaceful and will never backstab a weak player, Montezuma is batshit insane and lusts for blood, Isabella from Spain is a religious fanatic, Mansa Musa will quickly forget past wars and is happy to make peace to trade techs. A player can also befriend and ally a KI and win jointly. There is a Google Tech Talk from the formet Civ lead programmer about this "Fu…

Ghandi always goes for the nukes though. I'm convinced this is an in joke added by the developers of the game to mess with us. Ghandi is one of the most agressive AIs if he views you as a threat.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#126

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…

In the board game Twilight Struggle, a game about the Cold War (& #1 on boardgamegeek.com), you lose if you escalate matters to defcon 1 and cause a nuclear war. A big part of the strategy, though, is knowing how to cause your opponent to inadvertently trigger defcon 1 ( http://twilightstrategy.com/2011/12/12/general-strategy-defc... ).

That sounds broken: anyone hitting defcon 1 means everyone loses.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#127
post #81
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, Machiavell…

I hope we've come at least a bit further since the renaissance. Diplomacy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game - indeed it rarely is in the real world. War, on the other hand, is very much that. So in that respect, war is the failure of diplomacy, not the continuation of it.

I hope we've come at least a bit further since the renaissance.

I may not understand your definition of 'further'.

People are no smarter than they they were in 1500. There are no new cultural institutions.

Our toys are better, but people is still people.

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#128

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…

Fate of the World ( http://fateoftheworld.net/ ) is an interesting indie strategy game. You play as a world organization and your goal in the main scenario is to prevent global warming. The problem is, as interesting as the theme is, the base game had serious issues with balance and simply understanding cause and effect, so it was difficult and not always fun (kind of like trying to solve global warming in real life!…

> Fate of the World (http://fateoftheworld.net/) is an interesting indie strategy game.

Bought it today because of this recommendation. I hate you, Hacker News. ;).

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect because there just isn't a big enough market for games > of that nature. Maybe there is a handful of us out there. Maybe a > relatively small handful, but one that's willing to pay a fair > amount for a really great, truly strategic global power game. I > dunno. Maybe it's worth organizing, or Kickstarting, or what have > you. If any game devs out there are reading this and are > interested, know that the…

You mean something like Planetarion or Orion's Belt? To be clear, your phrasing seems to present this as a novel approach, though it is not. Regardless, it's all about the particular game design that makes or breaks a game so I wish you success, it just struck me that maybe you were not aware of this fairly large genre based on how your text sounded.

  > To be clear, your phrasing seems to present this as a novel
  > approach, though it is not.
Obviously, the idea of a strategy game[a] in a browser is as old as web browsers themselves. I even played a few in the mid-2000s.[b] There's lots of them, written in PHP, and with a fairly static experience.[c] There's a reason, though, that when asked for my inspirations, I'll name desktop games like Civilization II rather than browser games.

The novel thing isn't the idea, it's the opportunity that HTML 5 gives for the execution of the idea. I'm not original. I'm just lucky enough to be at the right place and the right time. My particular execution of the ultimately older-than-computers[1] idea is possible only because of .[d]

Digital portable media players existed as far back as 1979 and MP3 players go back to about 1997,[2] but the iPod didn't take off until 2005.[3] It's possible to have the right idea, but years too early and with poor execution.[e]

-----

[a] Don't just limit it to space. There's plenty of non-space ones, too! There's usually not that big of a difference in how a browser game is played based on the setting.

[b] My observation in footnote a of my previous post that a once-a-day refresh would stress the server is something I experienced in one of the games I played.

[c] Many of them are better than anything Zynga has written, though.

[d] My game was originally going to be a desktop game. That's not very interesting compared to the challenge of doing it in HTML 5 and JavaScript.

[e] The poor execution is often due to being years (or decades) too early.

-----

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_game

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Media_Player

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.sv...

Re: Civ II game a decade old

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> democracy is a less effective system because it's holding back the decision making process... seemingly very little real progress... we have... generally nothing really significant ... to complain about. This mystifies me: people sometimes talk about legislative gridlock as though it's all bad. Do you measure the quality of a development team by the number of lines of code they produce? Of course not. The developm…

One of the reasons the US has a divided Congress is to induce gridlock. This was a design goal. Remember, government is other people making rules for you . The more efficient they are at changing the rules, the riskier it is for you to do just about anything. The more efficient they are at changing the rules, the more likely they'll take an extreme position on a contentious subject.

But this is why a two-party system can be a liability. You artificially create an us-vs-them scenario, with the other side as the enemy, and any agreement with them on the issues is capitulation.

As a result, you end up with a scenario in which there is always one side with a majority, who are capable of doing whatever they like, and one side with a minority, who are left to scrabble for democratic scraps, pushing bills with little impact to feel as though they've accomplished something. The few bills that do pass with bipartisan support are usually so pointless or watered-down that there's little benefit to having them at all, or it's an issue important to the country as a whole (or, more specifically, their political careers), and so it's put through without appropriate debate or consideration.

With a three-or-more-party system (e.g. parliamentary democracies, such as the UK or Canada), you can end up with a result where even the 'ruling' party doesn't have a majority. This means that when they want to pass a bill, it has to be a situation where they can get the support of at least one of the other parties. While this still requires the same sort of give-and-take as a two-party system, it provides more options for bargaining. You won't approve my 'environmental impact' bill unless I approve your 'limiting access to abortion' bill? Well screw that, the other party just wants me to endorse their 'stiffer penalties for labour law violations' bill.

This seems to me to be a more efficient solution, and I've never understood why the two-party solution was the choice made for the US.

Post reply on HN