Think about it - perhaps the phalanx in your current game is a little more powerful but a little slower than the normal values. But the legion costs a lot more than normal. How would that effect your stratagy? More phalanxes? More legions? Would you skip the offense?

What I'm saying is that the first time you play one of these games, its always a blast to see what works and what dosn't. There is no right stratagy, since everything is new. Nothing turns me off more than someone telling you to "always do this" or "never do that". Thats when the game turns stale - you just fall into your usual pattern. But if every attribute were to vary within logical bounds, it could make the game a lot more fun.

2 things I've always wanted: 1) to not have full access to enemy information. In SMAC you could clicks on enemy units and get their exact information. A combat % chance of victory screen would pop up before you engaged the enemy- although this could be turned off, your and their total strengths were given on the screen. This should be changed to some sort of Scouting mission- whether presented to the player before combat or abstracted into the information given when the player seeks it out- and it could be wrong. See COMBAT in the List 2 for more details.

In Civ2, it really wouldn't work because the combat values are too small. Phalanx is a 1/2/1 unit. What can you really do with that? In CTP2, a hoplite (same thing) is 10/15/1. All combat values are larger, giving you more room. In fact, it would have been quite easy to do, other than the fact that the game is a real boner, so whats the point?

A human player can live with changing game parameters (enjoing or not is another matter: be a newbies forever is no fun), but usually non-cheating AI can't manage at all uncertainity (they move according with set of rules, not always they can change their action according with changed values if they alter the game deeply enough (and if not, who cares).

A heavy cheating AI can ignore these changes, but I suppose no one will like the result

AFAIK a bit of randomness in battle results is already included, to CivII and SMAC. I think that having no guess of the battle more likely result, must be more for AI tactics that for unknow strenght of the force involved in battle.

- Randomly fluctuating unit-values
- Randomly fluctuating city-improvement values

Why stop there? Why not introduce randomly fluctuating values for tile-improvements and government-types as well, while you guys are at it?

Why dont I like this idea? Well, heres a comparison:

What if the cook couldnt trust the cooking nature-laws anymore? What if sugar suddenly and randomly could change to salt? What if any ingredient in the middle of any cooking- or baking-procedure, suddenly and randomly could change their effects and influence, in totally unforeseen matters?

What do you think the end-result of these cooking-sessions most often would be?

I'm not saying to vary the units by some huge amount (not sugar into salt). I'm just saying a gentle nudge this way or that. Phalanxs would still be defensive. Legions would still be offensive. Phalanxs would have no real greater chance of killing a tank than they do now.

And, yes, government effects should vary (SLIGHTLY!). So could production, so could ANY value in the game. Slightly enough that over vast numbers, it might make a slight difference, but just enough to make the game a tad less predictable.

Lets multiply all combat values by 10. So a phalanx is now 10/20/1. Say it was randomized within the bounds of [7-13]/[15-25]/1. It would still be a defensive unit. However, what if they randomized to 12/17/1's. Maybe, you might consider using them to help attack a city, since they have a better attack against rival phalanxs then they once did. Maybe you wont. But the unit maintains its basic configuration but with a slight change.

You know, when Pacman first came out, there was nothing more depressingly pathetic than people who would buy hintbooks on the game, and place maps on the consoles so they could stear through the level more effiecntly. The point of a game is to play, to try new things from time to time, based on your judgement, logic, and insight. You think the South was adding up combat factors before they launched picket's charge? Was the defeat of Napoleon's Old Guard a matter of numbers, or a calculated risk.

Games are about learning and creativity. Work is about the aplication of a learned skill, over and over and over.

However, does that nullify my principal objections in my "cooking-arguments" completely? And what about the AI-overkill problems?

As i see it; Unit- and Event-randomness sounds good in theory, but peforms not-so-good in practical gameplay-fun. Just look at the way many players often reload saved games, just because this or that battle-outcome, or random disaster delivered a negative result.

quote: Originally posted by Brent on 01-16-2001 02:51 PM Say occasionally it can only move one square in a place where it would normally move two. Or three instead of two. Would people appreciate this sort of thing? I think it would a good random variation.

I really dont think most players would appreciate that kind of thing.

Trust me. If bad random things can happen to me, they will. All the goddamn time.

The only solution is to keep bad random things the hell out of my game.

Ralf, your point is well taken. I can see waves of angry players flooding this forum with "bug" complaints. Firaxis should be concerned about this. My bottom line feeling, however, is a lack of sympathy for players who will not learn how to play the game.