The importance of Exploration

[Steve Clark]

Don't remember if this has been touched on much but when reading about Colonies (and their discovery of resources), I am reminded of one of my favorite aspects of Civ-type games (Civ2, CNW, Imp2, etc.) - EXPLORATION. It's not just revealing new terrain (and specials) from an unknown area, but in stumbling across exciting and unique bonuses that could help you in various ways. I remember in playing the World of Jules Verne scenario and how exciting it was to discover the Cataracts of the Nile, or in playing CNW and coming across a War Temple. I think several other Civ2 scenarios touched on this (like perhaps Sacrificial Blood) and I would love for Civ3 to have this element of surprise as well, particularly in remote areas of a map.

[DarkCloud]

Research rate should increase when you explore more.
Exploring more will allow you to envelop more people into your country and thus increase the flow of ideas and add speed to your research rate.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Research rate should increase when you explore more.
Exploring more will allow you to envelop more people into your country and thus increase the flow of ideas and add speed to your research rate.

Enveloping more peoples? That mean's conquering cities, exploring more territory just means you see more. I like it the way it is, research is dependent on trade (Civ2 name), whether within your borders, or with outside cultures. Having increased diplomacy and goods trading with other civs increases the flow of ideas.

[Sean]

Steve,

I too enjoyed the surprises of the Jules Verne sceniro, and CNW. It helps keep things interesting and replayable.

Two points to consider though.
1) Explore bonuses may provide a too bigger advantage...(though you should be rewarded for exploring...)
2) As some resources won't be revealed untill certain techs are discovered, we should have pleasant surprises (or frightening shocks).

On the whole, I am undecided on the matter.

[me_irate]

I believe the huts represented the benefits of exploring. i would however like to be able to find natural wonders then be able to name them. also i think if you built a city near them you would get a trade bonus or something. i believe that finding victoria falls, or grand canyon or possibly ancient ruins such as ankor wat(sp) we add a lot of character to the game, and make it more injoyable.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by me_irate
I believe the huts represented the benefits of exploring. i would however like to be able to find natural wonders then be able to name them. also i think if you built a city near them you would get a trade bonus or something. i believe that finding victoria falls, or grand canyon or possibly ancient ruins such as ankor wat(sp) we add a lot of character to the game, and make it more injoyable.

Nice idea!

I however think that the huts themselves should be downgraded somewhat (no free settlers or techs - the human player exploits these benefits far too efficiently, compared with the AI). Only money, horsemen (only), empty ruins or barbarians.

[Jer8m8]

what's CNW

[Steve Clark]

Sorry for the acronym. CNW is Interplay's Conquest of the New World, a superb combination of exploration, city-building, resource management and tactical conquests. When the first edition came out in 1997?, it got rave reviews (4.5-5 stars in many places) and was declared the best 4X game to date (far, far better than Colonization imo). When the Deluxe version came out, they added additional resources and special ones like the War Temple which gave a bonus to your forts and military units. I think one of the best thing about the game was its chessboard-like combat resolution, the best model I've seen to resolve combat of stacked units. However, for some reason, this game didn't take off market-wise.

As far as its applicability to Civ3, the scale is a little different. You are building only a handful of cities in a limited area. But its exploration mechanisms and bonus/exploration points can be similar to a Civ-like game. Also, CNW's method of resolving combat between stacked units was brought up when we were putting The List together. But because of its scale, it would not be appropriate to include something like this in Civ3 because it would make the game last too long. In all, we were exploring the possibility of making Civ combat more robust than Civ2 but not to the extent of CNW. So...there you go.

[rah]

'Only money, horsemen (only), empty ruins or barbarians'

That would take most of the incentive out of opening them. Your risk/reward would be dramatically reduced. This would make exploring less profitable. You might as well remove huts it you're going to do that.

RAH

[DarkCloud]

Not a lot of people live in the country, but the small percentage that do would contribute to your science. You would also meet more nomads, wanderers, and traders who bring ideas from other lands.

[Grumbold]

Conquest of the New World certainly did handle the exploration well and the combat method was also ingenious, particularly for raids where fighting them off too slowly would result in lost goods. The research was good for its limited scope as well. I was less impressed with the level of colony micromanagement (or the AI if you left it to them) and the sheer sprawl of colonies that would have the entire continent becoming one big suburb if you allowed the game to continue. The ability to find and name geographical features would be a nice bit of gloss to add to Civ 3.

The special resources seem so common that having "x's plains" or "Y's Peak" every four tiles would just look too crowded. Perhaps they should just be user placeable name tags with no special requirement. That would give people the chance to name a completely uninspiring hill "Monte Cassino" as a gentle reminder that they planned on making a fortification there. In multiplayer these tags should probably be invisible to the others (or configurable as visible/invisible).

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Not a lot of people live in the country, but the small percentage that do would contribute to your science. You would also meet more nomads, wanderers, and traders who bring ideas from other lands.

Actually, up until the last century, the majority of people in the world were rural dwellers. The depopulating of the countryside is a very recent phenomenon. As such, exploration should "realistically" be beneficial to a civ. I like the ideas of discovering wonders and resources...

How about a Feat of Wonder like in CTP 2 for the first Civs to explore a continent where you get a bonus for 25 turns.

[Captain]

I think exploring the map is its own reward. You discover what's around you, the important resources(for the tech level you're at), find out about enemies, where to expand to, ideal city spots, key choke points, differentiate inland lake from open ocean, etc... Information is power, and the info garnered from exploring is enough of a bonus if a player uses that info to plan their strategy. If the entire map was revealed to one player, all else being equal, that player would dominate completely, even without any other bonuses.

Thus, I don't favour any expanded bonuses. In the game, the major civs like you the human player are much further ahead of other civs and as such, the benefit derived from contact with the minor tribes around you should be almost negligible at the start. But as building roads boosts trade, that represents increasing your contact and trade with these minor peoples that invisibly populate the areas around your cities. If you want the trade (hence econ and research) bonus, you should have to build roads (representing trade routes, infrastructure, law&order, etc). Exploring in itself isn't enough for trade, you must develop. As above, exploring already has plenty of bonuses without trade bonuses.

One more thing, the huts tend to be too powerful as well. I played a nomad game recently and the huge army & cash & tech I amassed from huts ALONE completely demolished the opposition. This is really only useful in the early game when that extra archer doubles your army size and lets you wipe out a fledgling rival. Later on, an extra mech inf doesn't make too much difference when I've got 60 others. Huts should either be toned down, or a lot harder to find.

[DarkCloud]

Captain- I have never had anything good happen, besides the huts, when I explore- all I do is meet new enemies.

Exploring gifts the explorer with nothing but trouble.

That is why we need extra bonuses to give us reasons to explore.

[To_Serve_Man]

I feel that with the new trade and resource system that is being planned for Civ3, will make exploration its own reward like Captian said. A player will need to explore to find new resources, like more coal, silk, wine(grapes), coffee beans, ect. Thus, the need for colonies. And if a player finds another civilization, exploration opens trade.

So by exploring, you gain more resources. By gaining more resources, you can produce more and in the case of 'Luxuary' resources, your culture/border will increase.

[Grumbold]

I certainly never need an incentive to explore my own continent but the occasional hut was nice. Venturing overseas (assuming I am not living on a tiny island) I leave until much later. Finding unique features would just be a nice bonus to add character to a map as long as you didn't get a Niagra or Amazon in every game.

[MrFun]

I enjoy exploring as it is in the previous Civ titles.

Let's see -- is this a peninsula or an island?

Is this shore on my continent an ocean, an inland sea, or a lake?

How large is this mountain chain -- is there a fertile valley nestled in it? Are there any important choke points?

Where does this desert end? Is there ANY place where there is viable resources?

I use my imagination when I explore.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think exploration should yield extra bonuses as well, other than the usual huts. It's nice if a player can name a terrain feature, but that's just chrome with no actual effects on the game.

While we are on the subject, I think that a civ wouldn't be able to make a permanent record of its surroundings before finding Mapmaking. So in effect the features of explored areas slowly change over time until Mapmaking comes along. This would be a nice touch and an added incentive for getting the advance.

Of course a civ will know accurately what's within it's borders and inside the field of vision of its units.

[Pilfur]

I think having natural wonders on the map would be a great idea. Picture a niagra falls exploitable for its power generation or a mount everest or grand canyon just for the eye candy alone.

[Geoff the Medio]

In my opinion, one thing that needs to be changed from SMAC is the frequency at which other Civs/Factions offer to trade you maps of the other Civ's/Faction's territory. I don't remember if or how often this happened in Civ II, but it seems like something that might be included in Civ III with the goal of expanding the diplomacy sytem. I mention this because, especially in my most recent game, I explored my own continent, then contacted another faction when they landed near one of my bases, and from that one contact, I was able to fairly quickly trade for all the other factions' comm frequencies and territory maps. No actual exploration was required, and in retrospect, I missed it.

I realize I could simply not trade for the maps, but that seems somewhat artificial/silly while actually playing... and it doesn't really make sense strategically.

[Nemesis of the North]

Yes, finding the Niagara Falls would be great ... if they only were more than 15-20 pixels tall. That is the problem of implementing natural wonders in the game - the tiles aren't large enough (and I hope they will stay small to ease navigation)

*speaks to himself* Maybe a popup-window could do it, no...

All in all I feel landmarks could be a great feature, if only they don't affect normal gameplay

Nemesis