Good game, but, too short..... - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Good game, but, too short.....

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Good game, but, too short.....

Rostov posted 02-12-99 11:19 PM ET
A worthy successor to Civ and CivII. However, I think the 500 year time limit is a tad too short for scoring. It's only after some 300 years do things really take off, by which time, the game is half over. An extension would certainly make the game more enjoyable.
TheClockKing posted 02-12-99 11:45 PM ET
Thats about how long the scoring lasts in Civ1 and 2 and I never thought that they were to short. If you have a really good game going you can keep playing it and see it out which to me is the fun part of the game, though getting a huge score is cool too.
Lone War posted 02-13-99 03:15 AM ET
You mean that you have actually seen what happens after turn 300? The longest game I played was to turn 291 and that was because I was trying for a Diplomatic Victory because I had already won by Transcendance twice. Maybe I should play someone other than UoP?
Schole posted 02-13-99 09:40 AM ET
Maybe you should try Tech Stagnation and a higher difficulty level (unless you already played on Transcend).
tOFfGI posted 02-13-99 02:02 PM ET
Or a Huge Map...
ubergeek posted 02-13-99 04:05 PM ET
or manage all formers and tech advances yourself
WolfLord posted 02-13-99 04:38 PM ET
Thats odd Ive never seen the year 2400 in any of my games.
Rostov posted 02-14-99 01:10 PM ET
Ok. OBVIOUSLY, i'm not runnng my factions
to their full potential. hence, for some of us, it takes longer to get going. which is odd because when i play Multi-player CivII, the contest between me and the 5 people i play with boils down to me and the same old advesary, known as Gen. Big Bad....

still, i just wanted to gripe about the short time span, grumble, grrrr, woof.....
bene4 posted 02-15-99 03:20 PM ET
2400 is when things get neat. Haven't made it to 2600 yet, but would like to do that....
I remember the Civ 2 "Retirement" sequence, accompanied by sunlight coming in the window. Often made it to retirement in 10-12 hours. On a HUGE map of SMAC, 20 (non-continuous, can't do that anymore) hrs brought me to about 2450, which is another 150 years to go... or another 10 hours.
Spoe posted 02-15-99 03:42 PM ET
Customize yourself for a 200x200 map, 70-90% water. That should give you a nice, long game.
HOSTIS posted 02-15-99 05:01 PM ET
Maybe if you all dont play the game for
all day it would last longer!!
Xentropy posted 02-15-99 07:17 PM ET
um, according to the manual, the mandatory retirement year is 2400 for the top 3 difficulty levels and 2500 for the bottom 3... So no one will *ever* see 2600, at least not while still scoring...
Maybe the manual is wrong, but I'll find out soon, since I'm in 2320 in my game on Librarian level, now, and just got needlejets for chrissake... I don't know how anyone can ever Transcend on the top 3 difficulty levels...
Course it's probobly because I only had 4 cities, thanks to starting on a small island totally surrounded by islands already full of the other factions... still my tech is #1, so the AI certainly won't be able to Transcend in 300 years, either...
IkshahI posted 02-15-99 09:40 PM ET
no no no..
see at the beggining of civ ii turns are 50 yrs a piece! but when tech increases it is a turn a year. So you can only assume that at 2XXX tech has increased more allowing it to have turns like that... standard civ2 games are exactly 700 turns...
Xentropy posted 02-15-99 11:40 PM ET
Exactly... I think either the mandatory retirement year should be an unselectable option altogether (perhaps with a score penalty), or that the years be in the text files and therefore alterable... 300 turns is just much too short a time to play... and I know you can go on longer without scoring, but I want to continue scoring, so the end still feels like an end...
Telastyn posted 02-16-99 02:16 AM ET
bah. I've been playing on Thinker/HUGE map one single player and one co-op game with my brother.
I'm only 200 turns or so into the game and have been in some major conflicts and my tech is right about at the advanced spaceflight level.
Xentropy posted 02-16-99 03:02 AM ET
Try a huge map with high ocean coverage... slows things *way* the hell down... At least the *option* for no time limit should be there...
Mortis posted 02-16-99 05:28 AM ET
Could you clear something up for someone who hasn't got the game (yet). By "Manditory Retirement" do you mean, the end of scoring or the end of playing.
Because for me the end of scoring isn't that big a deal. Yes I like to have my name up there in big letters, but the game is not just about getting a high score.
Xentropy posted 02-16-99 07:46 PM ET
Mandatory retirement just means the game gets scored then... You can choose to continue playing, but you lose things like faction superiority graph updates and the like, and endings after that point don't "end" the game, so it all feels rather empty once the game has been scored... I understand scores could get rediculously large if you were allowed to play on *forever*, but a huge score penalty for turning off mandatory retirement should counteract this, but keep *some* sort of scoring going on forever so that you could still see the graphs and not feel you're playing a worthless game... I like water-worlds, but they slow advancement down to the point it's difficult to impossible to Transcend in 300 turns...
Rostov posted 02-16-99 10:17 PM ET
Thank you Xentropy. Someone who feels like i do. First game i played i went right to the 2nd highest level(Thinker?) or emperor in civ ii jargon. perhaps we could lobby firaxis to introduce a patch to allow a longer game with scoring. and the one thing i've noticed at his high level, the computer goes absolutely nuts about building air units.
Brother Greg posted 02-17-99 12:01 AM ET
Um, while I can see your point, I think the whole point is that if you're not getting the game finished in 300 years, then you're not playing well enough (no offence intended). That's what the harder difficulty levels are for, people that know the game well enough, and play well enough to overcome any handicaps that you might come accross.
So I don't think that the solution is necessarily (damn, spelling's shot this arvo), but just that you haven't played enough to be able to beat the top two levels yet.
Also, basically Firaxis do all their testing on scoring at those levels. So if they then introduced scoring that went on for longer, then you'd get a disproportionate value of your ability.
If you're scoring 20% on the second highest level then there's a reason for it. Even if that reason may be that water worlds make it very hard to win on the top two levels, that tells me more that you should try another tactic/world design/difficulty level than that the game scoring needs changing.
I mean, that's like saying "but if they only allowed you to play football for another 10 minutes, it'd be better, because I find it hard to play in the alloted time".
There has to be SOME end to the scoring, and if you're scoring too low, then you're doing something wrong (or just not doing something well enough)...
Sinapus posted 02-17-99 04:55 AM ET
Hmm... is the retirement limit editable in those textfiles? I'm scanning through alpha.txt with Notepad, but don't see it off hand...
wentworth posted 02-17-99 02:31 PM ET
If you can win in 300 turns on transcend with lots of land, but not with lots of water, it may mean that the 300 turns is not enough. I've never tried it (if there's one thing I dislike, it's water).
Xentropy posted 02-17-99 10:30 PM ET
All I'm saying is an option either in-game or in the text files should exist, not that the limit should be removed altogether... They can set up a formula to decrease the score a number of points per turn after 300 years if they want... I don't care about scores, just about the graphs...
And just to set you straight on the inability to play the game thing, I'm just fine on worlds with lots of land, and used to play Civ2 on deity and win just about every time... It's simply that 70-90% water worlds are much slower to grow on, and the option to turn up the retirement age to play on one would be a very welcome addition, at least to the text files for advanced players to play with...
eNo posted 02-17-99 10:54 PM ET
I agree that scores should continue to be calculated and perhaps even the replay should continue to be recored. Playing without any visible effect does become empty. I think that playing past the retirement should only mean your name is no longer recoreded in the highscores.
Brother Greg posted 02-18-99 12:31 AM ET
Actually, water should be easier to expand on. You get more food from the water than you do from land (though, granted, less minerals). So all it should take is different tactics.
I can however see the point where keeping the graphs would be nice. Sorry, I must have missed that part...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Good game, but, too short.....
Rostov	posted 02-12-99 11:19 PM ET A worthy successor to Civ and CivII. However, I think the 500 year time limit is a tad too short for scoring. It's only after some 300 years do things really take off, by which time, the game is half over. An extension would certainly make the game more enjoyable.
TheClockKing	posted 02-12-99 11:45 PM ET Thats about how long the scoring lasts in Civ1 and 2 and I never thought that they were to short. If you have a really good game going you can keep playing it and see it out which to me is the fun part of the game, though getting a huge score is cool too.
Lone War	posted 02-13-99 03:15 AM ET You mean that you have actually seen what happens after turn 300? The longest game I played was to turn 291 and that was because I was trying for a Diplomatic Victory because I had already won by Transcendance twice. Maybe I should play someone other than UoP?
Schole	posted 02-13-99 09:40 AM ET Maybe you should try Tech Stagnation and a higher difficulty level (unless you already played on Transcend).
tOFfGI	posted 02-13-99 02:02 PM ET Or a Huge Map...
ubergeek	posted 02-13-99 04:05 PM ET or manage all formers and tech advances yourself
WolfLord	posted 02-13-99 04:38 PM ET Thats odd Ive never seen the year 2400 in any of my games.
Rostov	posted 02-14-99 01:10 PM ET Ok. OBVIOUSLY, i'm not runnng my factions to their full potential. hence, for some of us, it takes longer to get going. which is odd because when i play Multi-player CivII, the contest between me and the 5 people i play with boils down to me and the same old advesary, known as Gen. Big Bad.... still, i just wanted to gripe about the short time span, grumble, grrrr, woof.....
bene4	posted 02-15-99 03:20 PM ET 2400 is when things get neat. Haven't made it to 2600 yet, but would like to do that.... I remember the Civ 2 "Retirement" sequence, accompanied by sunlight coming in the window. Often made it to retirement in 10-12 hours. On a HUGE map of SMAC, 20 (non-continuous, can't do that anymore) hrs brought me to about 2450, which is another 150 years to go... or another 10 hours.
Spoe	posted 02-15-99 03:42 PM ET Customize yourself for a 200x200 map, 70-90% water. That should give you a nice, long game.
HOSTIS	posted 02-15-99 05:01 PM ET Maybe if you all dont play the game for all day it would last longer!!
Xentropy	posted 02-15-99 07:17 PM ET um, according to the manual, the mandatory retirement year is 2400 for the top 3 difficulty levels and 2500 for the bottom 3... So no one will ever see 2600, at least not while still scoring... Maybe the manual is wrong, but I'll find out soon, since I'm in 2320 in my game on Librarian level, now, and just got needlejets for chrissake... I don't know how anyone can ever Transcend on the top 3 difficulty levels... Course it's probobly because I only had 4 cities, thanks to starting on a small island totally surrounded by islands already full of the other factions... still my tech is #1, so the AI certainly won't be able to Transcend in 300 years, either...
IkshahI	posted 02-15-99 09:40 PM ET no no no.. see at the beggining of civ ii turns are 50 yrs a piece! but when tech increases it is a turn a year. So you can only assume that at 2XXX tech has increased more allowing it to have turns like that... standard civ2 games are exactly 700 turns...
Xentropy	posted 02-15-99 11:40 PM ET Exactly... I think either the mandatory retirement year should be an unselectable option altogether (perhaps with a score penalty), or that the years be in the text files and therefore alterable... 300 turns is just much too short a time to play... and I know you can go on longer without scoring, but I want to continue scoring, so the end still feels like an end...
Telastyn	posted 02-16-99 02:16 AM ET bah. I've been playing on Thinker/HUGE map one single player and one co-op game with my brother. I'm only 200 turns or so into the game and have been in some major conflicts and my tech is right about at the advanced spaceflight level.
Xentropy	posted 02-16-99 03:02 AM ET Try a huge map with high ocean coverage... slows things way the hell down... At least the option for no time limit should be there...
Mortis	posted 02-16-99 05:28 AM ET Could you clear something up for someone who hasn't got the game (yet). By "Manditory Retirement" do you mean, the end of scoring or the end of playing. Because for me the end of scoring isn't that big a deal. Yes I like to have my name up there in big letters, but the game is not just about getting a high score.
Xentropy	posted 02-16-99 07:46 PM ET Mandatory retirement just means the game gets scored then... You can choose to continue playing, but you lose things like faction superiority graph updates and the like, and endings after that point don't "end" the game, so it all feels rather empty once the game has been scored... I understand scores could get rediculously large if you were allowed to play on forever, but a huge score penalty for turning off mandatory retirement should counteract this, but keep some sort of scoring going on forever so that you could still see the graphs and not feel you're playing a worthless game... I like water-worlds, but they slow advancement down to the point it's difficult to impossible to Transcend in 300 turns...
Rostov	posted 02-16-99 10:17 PM ET Thank you Xentropy. Someone who feels like i do. First game i played i went right to the 2nd highest level(Thinker?) or emperor in civ ii jargon. perhaps we could lobby firaxis to introduce a patch to allow a longer game with scoring. and the one thing i've noticed at his high level, the computer goes absolutely nuts about building air units.
Brother Greg	posted 02-17-99 12:01 AM ET Um, while I can see your point, I think the whole point is that if you're not getting the game finished in 300 years, then you're not playing well enough (no offence intended). That's what the harder difficulty levels are for, people that know the game well enough, and play well enough to overcome any handicaps that you might come accross. So I don't think that the solution is necessarily (damn, spelling's shot this arvo), but just that you haven't played enough to be able to beat the top two levels yet. Also, basically Firaxis do all their testing on scoring at those levels. So if they then introduced scoring that went on for longer, then you'd get a disproportionate value of your ability. If you're scoring 20% on the second highest level then there's a reason for it. Even if that reason may be that water worlds make it very hard to win on the top two levels, that tells me more that you should try another tactic/world design/difficulty level than that the game scoring needs changing. I mean, that's like saying "but if they only allowed you to play football for another 10 minutes, it'd be better, because I find it hard to play in the alloted time". There has to be SOME end to the scoring, and if you're scoring too low, then you're doing something wrong (or just not doing something well enough)...
Sinapus	posted 02-17-99 04:55 AM ET Hmm... is the retirement limit editable in those textfiles? I'm scanning through alpha.txt with Notepad, but don't see it off hand...
wentworth	posted 02-17-99 02:31 PM ET If you can win in 300 turns on transcend with lots of land, but not with lots of water, it may mean that the 300 turns is not enough. I've never tried it (if there's one thing I dislike, it's water).
Xentropy	posted 02-17-99 10:30 PM ET All I'm saying is an option either in-game or in the text files should exist, not that the limit should be removed altogether... They can set up a formula to decrease the score a number of points per turn after 300 years if they want... I don't care about scores, just about the graphs... And just to set you straight on the inability to play the game thing, I'm just fine on worlds with lots of land, and used to play Civ2 on deity and win just about every time... It's simply that 70-90% water worlds are much slower to grow on, and the option to turn up the retirement age to play on one would be a very welcome addition, at least to the text files for advanced players to play with...
eNo	posted 02-17-99 10:54 PM ET I agree that scores should continue to be calculated and perhaps even the replay should continue to be recored. Playing without any visible effect does become empty. I think that playing past the retirement should only mean your name is no longer recoreded in the highscores.
Brother Greg	posted 02-18-99 12:31 AM ET Actually, water should be easier to expand on. You get more food from the water than you do from land (though, granted, less minerals). So all it should take is different tactics. I can however see the point where keeping the graphs would be nice. Sorry, I must have missed that part...