Beta test fears

Who are they?

Did anyone play Civ IV Colonization on its release?

And realize the ridiculousness of the size of the Royal Expeditionary Force (now refered to as the REF)?

If not:

The min/maxr's got involved in development and the game became tuned for them. If you played the game to develop a resonable and historical presence you ended up with a REF of 80 Man O Wars, 120 Regulars and 60 Dragoons. And had a mere 12 infantry maybe 7 dragoons and 3 frigates to deal with it.

When the average joe player expressed concern they were met with extreme criticism from the min/maxr's that they need to learn to play the game, and convert income producing colonists to soldiers pronto to avoid increasing the REF. In fact one went so far as to call anyone who establiched more than one colony idiots for doing so (as the REF growth was proportional to population so as long as you kept that down it was a cake walk).

Fact was I didn't care. I bought a game to play it, use it's functions and have a good time. The rapid expansion of the REF broke this entirely.

I worry that the emphasis on a "more agressive AI" will focus on the behaviour of the min/maxr's in ETW (As these players tend to be the most active on boards). I believe from a Declaration of War standpoint (Forward refered to as DoW) the AI is agressive enough. It just does it at inopportune times or doesn't follow through. I don't want to be at war with all my neighbors for no apparent reason, but I also don't want an Austria that declares war on Prussia without a single military unit in Silesia or Prague.

Who are the beta testers? They are not allowed to reveal themselves, in accordance with the NDA (non disclosure agreement) or so it has been in the past for most of the games I've beta tested :shrug:.

I believe the Dev's will have chosen a wide range of players, they had a lot of replies at .com alone, so i think many many applications would have been sent in.

@ nafod

More aggressive AI by its self does not make a better game. Just like spam invasions don’t.

I can understand the fears.

But I am sure the Devs want to keep the game true to what they started with, minus glitches of course.

Most of the changes I have read about seem well thought out. Perhaps the cost and upkeep may be factional. Some of the poorer factions strain under the costs as they are now until late in the game. I am thinking of Spain in particular here.

Lower economic yields are hard to fathom for some of the poor countries. Until a faction becomes a trading powerhouse most are in trouble.

I know when I played Austria and Spain that I needed to tax exempt most of what I had for a long time and it makes military development almost impossible. Even building early trade fleets was a bit beyond my means.

There are a lot of playing styles and player goals.

From my point of view, the game doesn’t need to be harder. It is just a matter of getting thing to function the way they were meant to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

@ nafod
From my point of view, the game doesn’t need to be harder. It is just a matter of getting thing to function the way they were meant to.

---

I couldn't agree more. In essence, the AI needs to play the game by the same rules that the player can. Obviously that's not easy to do...

At the moment it feels like the AI is playing drafts (checkers) with a chess set.

@fisherking

I guess I wasn't clear, the AI definitely needs changes as I also agree with the checkers on a chess set comment. No the game isn't difficult in the least right now.

My main concern is that DoW's usually occur for reasons that are utterly silly, and at the moment the AI will at times do next to nothing after the DoW.

E.G. Dagestan and Georigia declare war against my Russians. All they do is put a huge stack in the two farms I have in Don Vosko and stop.

All GB is pirate trade routes and occasionally blockade.

France and the UP are at war, but since they don't share a border they're just staring at each other Westphalia.

I'm just saying that I don't need to be at war with every neighbour at every border. I would happily welcome an AI that can execute a war strategically in a fashion that fits the game.

For my two cents, I dont want the game to get harder economically. For one, with certain nations, the economy is just right.I do agree that with more trade oriented countries like GB and France you can rake in a lot of money, but to me money just means more action because I can afford to start more trouble. That being said, I think the game will be a lot more challenging if they just fix some of the issues it currently has instead of making things more difficult. For instance, if countries start to ship troops across water and perform some naval invasions, that in itself makes the game harder, and makes me spend more on troops to guard my cities and navies to guard my coasts, which makes it more difficult for me to rake in the extra money. Instead of limiting how much money we can make, just increase how much money AI countries can make. Then improve code so the AI uses this money to build proper armies and attack by sea sometimes. If the AI has good troops and can get those troops to my territories, then I will find plenty of use for the money I currently can make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Who are the beta testers?

---

Seems like we are. :wall:

I want the game to be harder, much harder. Less than halfway through my Prussian campaign I was swimming in money. Also, I prefer more aggressive AI behaviour.

I don't see why some people are against the game being harder. After all, there are difficulty settings. You can choose to play on whatever difficulty you like. But maybe the settings can be made more detailed. For example, there can be different choices for economical difficulty and AI aggressiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

I want the game to be harder, much harder. Less than halfway through my Prussian campaign I was swimming in money. Also, I prefer more aggressive AI behaviour.

I don't see why some people are against the game being harder. After all, there are difficulty settings. You can choose to play on whatever difficulty you like. But maybe the settings can be made more detailed. For example, there can be different choices for economical difficulty and AI aggressiveness.

---

Maybe Prussia is too easy for you. Some factions are much harder than others and making improvements to their economies is also harder. Also keeping an Absolute Monarchy is a bit of a challenge. Most of your troops are for garrisons.

That also puts you in a place where you don’t have the powerhouse trading economy with fleets having two or more spots in every trade theater, and that really makes things harder.

In some games the AI is seriously aggressive and in others not so. Most of the time it is difficult enough to make peace with another faction and you can have them raid your shipping to the point that you are always poor.

Making the game more difficult will also preclude some styles of play!

It is everyone’s game, not just the go fourth and conquer types, but also those who RP the game and those who go just for prestige and minimal conquest.

Only with the UP did I feel I was flush with cash, and then not until 3/4ths of the way through.

Half way through the game is just when I start to get my head above water.

Perhaps I am not as efficient a player as some of you. And others may be in the same place. It would tend to make the game impossible for some and defiantly unenjoyable.

Perhaps more difficulty settings are in order, but we haven’t a clue what is possible in that regard.

If you want it harder, other than AI tweaks, there are lots of things that can be done. Try not trading for example. Then you would never have to worry about too much cash.

nafod's right that the AI's declarations of war, and subsequent pursuit of same, is sometimes non-sense. It should be able to bring war to end (victory or defeat), or else internally decide on peace treaty after 10 years or so. but perhaps this is just symptom of lack of invasions- they'd likely cause wars to reach resolution.

I don't think AI needs to be harder, just smarter. (but then again, I'm clearly not one of the most aggressive, or effective, players...)