Predefined special abilities: a near miss?

[Adm.Naismith]

We aren't playing the game (if not for some posters with "Firaxis" label near the avatar ), so we are on a mine field discussing feature we don't know in detail and that are probably still in last minute tuning.

Anyway...
Firaxis decided to take SMAC Factions special traits and revamp them into predefined Civ special abilities.

They are intersting, still probably a nightmare to balance but they add a "distinct" feel to any Civ., not without some problem

First and most relevat problem that come to my mind is they are fixed, from game start to the end, and every game the same.

That's fine if you want a good replica of a part of earth history, as for a scenario that last for a couple of centuries, but what about the whole lenght of human civilization and some years more? or what about creating alternative history?

Are modern Romans (call us Italians ) still "Militaristic, Industrious"? Or English "Commercial, Expansionist" all history long?

Retoric question, obvious answer.

What can we do for a better result?
Randomizing the special abilities is not the way to go, IMHO. You don't know your opponent weak and strenght points in advance, but that will end at first diplomatic meeting or espionage.

What about dynamic change over the initial abilities?
You must start from a point, so let's accept Firaxis initial settings (or give them a tuning, if you really disagree ).
Yet during turns the game engine should consider how the players is acting, then slowly shifts ability (internal) parameters until on a threshold towards another ability couple.

At that moment an advisor should warn you, with a message on the line of "Sire, we aren't exploring and conquering enough, so we are losing our "Expansionism" will, but because of our efforts in city improvements we are now rewarded as "Industrious, Militaristic" from others civilizations."

You can have a warning with some turn in advance, just in time to try to steer away from an unwanted change, or fall straight into it, paying the effort to come back.

If you have enough patience, please follow an example of the model:
Let's assume that every Abilities have an internal meter worth 100 points, with a treeshold of 50 (taken or given 10 inertia points, more explanation later).

You start the Babylonians (Scientific, Religious) and take the corresponding benefits.
Scientific counter is set to 80%
Religious counter is set to 80%

Militarist, Commercial, Expansionist, Industrious are set to 20%

After some turns your research are going pretty well, raising Scientific counter to 90% (e.g. +1% every full turn spent diverting 10 percent more money income to research than treasury, i.e. research 55% money = treasure 45% money),
but you are pressed from a militaristic neighbourg to divert your production from religious improvement (temple) to military units, so your Religious counter lower under 50% and your Militarist counter raise over 50%.

Now you have the warning, and you have still short time to recover, until your civ spend the remaing 10 "inertia points over the threshold". That works both side, while an ability raise or lower.

When this happens, you have a new reputation over the world: you are still Scientist, but now Militarist, and advantage are changed accordingly. Religious abilities is gone, until you go back to a compatible style of play.

Are you still awake and reading? Thanks, this is a great achievement by itself.

Now, just another minute to examine strong an weak points of this model.
Strong: you model your Civ, from your favourite Firaxis benefit to the best example of your personality, as its Greatest Leader.
Any game can be slighty different, and you Civ evolve and react according to your will and events changing during the game.

Of course, during long wars ages all the players involved will probably shift toward a militaristic ability, but that ended anyone will probably go back to this "style", and so will do ability.

You should probably be able to switch off the feature for scenario needs, just to keep the Civs strictly in predefined roles, but in every "free" game and specially in MP you should love that freedom.

Weak points: I only give a glance to the game actions that can modify the Ability Counters. They need a good study and some link rules, or you risk to end with too much counters over the activation threshold on none at all
Of course no laws force us to have only and always TWO active ability, but I keep this for compatibility with current game design.

Just the early promised clarification: as you have noted, the "inertia" is needed to avoid too freequent and unwanted "waving" up and down the threeshold.

Ok, anyone can help me to iron out the weak points?

BTW, I understand is really too late for the game release, but you can never say for sure what a second patch can add under the game bonnet, and surely that's not a feature that add user complexity, so should pass the Sid's Ten Laws

Comments and critics are welcome. Insults, as usually, are automatically redirected to trash bin

edited to better explain some point

[splangy]

ITS A GAME!!! everyone, its not supposed to be perfect down to every detail, i think its fine as is.

[Adm.Naismith]

Eh eh, yes it's a game: thousands of people around here, a million copies expected sold... it's a commercial product, and a little entertainement gem if we are lucky.

But I'm not insulting Firaxis

I was just looking at how many debates started about how right are the value predefined by Firaxis, so I cleaned the dust from a concept already mentioned months ago, rounded the angles to my taste and posted.

All the forum is full of similar posts, why are you angry with me right now?

[Grim Legacy]

While I think the idea of dynamic characteristics is good, I have some doubts re- your thoughts.

Characteristics should be relatively inert, otherwise there is little point including them at all. Only after a relatively long time should a possible transition take place, not after you build four units.

[Skanky Burns]

Perhaps one way to balance it is to limit the change-overs to when you move from ancient to medieval or medi to modern...
This reflects the relatively long times that certain civs had their special traits.

Or, if you think only 2 changes is not enough, (i dont either ), then after changing from ancient, the civilizations traits could change at the end of every century, so its not like you build a cathedral, and then become a religious civ, and then build a military unit, and change again.

Well, its one way to stabilize the system a bit

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by splangy
ITS A GAME!!! everyone, its not supposed to be perfect down to every detail, i think its fine as is.

One more time - the notion that civs have pre-determined traits that last 6000 years is NOT a detail, it gets to the heart of what this game is all about. Its far more of a deviation from Civ2 than is say, the inclusion of televangelist units or space cities

LOTM

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
While I think the idea of dynamic characteristics is good, I have some doubts re- your thoughts.

Characteristics should be relativ++++inert, otherwise there is little point including them at all. Only after a relativ++++long time should a possible transition take place, not after you build four units.

I absolut++++agree. You wrote my thoughts exactly.

also, i think the thing about everyone switching to militaristic in a big war is a bigger problem than you may think it is

[Adm.Naismith]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Grim Legacy
While I think the idea of dynamic characteristics is good, I have some doubts re- your thoughts.
[quote]

That's fine

Characteristics should be relatively inert, otherwise there is little point including them at all. Only after a relatively long time should a possible transition take place, not after you build four units.

The exact level of tuning is, of course, to be determined with game balancing in mind and a playable game model to give a try.

OTOH, it seems to me that inclusion of characteristics should not been intended as a way to pre-define the way a Civ act for 6000+ years
That's the way to force AI civ to have some difference in civ development, without the complexity to have an AI smart enough to differentiate by itself.

The most useful point should be to add visible effects to different Civ "way to build history", or to reflect your style of play.
So it should change smoothly, of course not every couple of years, but definitelly during a long war you should see a shift to militaristic feel: can you show to me when in history people don't acted so?

dainbramaged13, would you please tell me more about side effects I can't see by myself?

[tniem]

I like the idea.

If you are going to use percentages a change you might think about is going full blown and have the top two advantages be used up to its percentage. That way you would have to continue to be religious to actually to get the full advantage.

What I mean by this is that your the Babylonians:

Scientific and Religious: 80%
Militaristic, Expansion, Commercial, Industrial : 20%

Currently you will start the game with full advantages, what if you only get 80% of the intended bonus at the start.

Down the road you have neglected your nation's religion but have improved the industry and so the percentages are:

Religious: 49%
Industrial: 50%

So the nation switches its top two attributes to Industrial and Scientific. But Industrial only gets about half the improved build speed that they could get from the bonus. Meanwhile Science has risen to 90% meaning that workers only work 90% faster than they could.

Any way, an idea to add to the evolution of switching between attributes.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by tniem
I like the idea.

If you are going to use percentages a change you might think about is going full blown and have the top two advantages be used up to its percentage. That way you would have to continue to be religious to actually to get the full advantage.

Yes, I considered that point too. Still, if you don't want to add too much complexity to the model, I introduced the "20%" as a safe room: if you continue to be religious you raise more to 100%, hence gaining some more poinst when bad times came and force you to lower the religion for others abilities.

Starting abilities can still be some kind of "attraction pole", where your Civ slowly come back if you act in a "neutral" way.
I.e. a Babilonian Civ can fall back to (Scientific, Religious) if nothing keep it away from it. This solution should make Grim Legacy happy, too

Skanky Burns, I agree to a stabilization element: that's also the reason because I mentioned that "inertia percentage" to avoid the system collapse on frequent change. I'm not happy about a "era limit", because it sounds false to me, more a programming shortcut than an efficient model (and I'm quite expert of programming "shortcut", after some years of audit and control over outsourced programmers ).

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


I absolut++++agree. You wrote my thoughts exactly.

also, i think the thing about everyone switching to militaristic in a big war is a bigger problem than you may think it is

Always nice to have people agreeing with you!

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


The exact level of tuning is, of course, to be determined with game balancing in mind and a playable game model to give a try.

OTOH, it seems to me that inclusion of characteristics should not been intended as a way to pre-define the way a Civ act for 6000+ years
That's the way to force AI civ to have some difference in civ development, without the complexity to have an AI smart enough to differentiate by itself.

The most useful point should be to add visible effects to different Civ "way to build history", or to reflect your style of play.
So it should change smoothly, of course not every couple of years, but definitelly during a long war you should see a shift to militaristic feel: can you show to me when in history people don't acted so?

dainbramaged13, would you please tell me more about side effects I can't see by myself?

Yeah ok, keeping the balancing in mind, I'm positive about the idea.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Skanky Burns, I agree to a stabilization element: that's also the reason because I mentioned that "inertia percentage" to avoid the system collapse on frequent change. I'm not happy about a "era limit", because it sounds false to me, more a programming shortcut than an efficient model (and I'm quite expert of programming "shortcut", after some years of audit and control over outsourced programmers ).

Hahaha, what a coincidence... im studying to be a programmer

[Rogan Josh]

I really like this idea too. I would see no problem in a society becoming militaristic during a long war - this seems to be what actually happens after all.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


Yeah ok, keeping the balancing in mind, I'm positive about the idea.

I think that it coudl be good, if It was always that there were a certain number of expansionist civs, and a certain number of militarist civs, so that everyone wouldn't be the same type, with of course a very large inertia gap.

[Urban Ranger]

Admiral,

I don't see any reason for adding huge complexity to the game for little gain. If you want real realism, no civ should start out with any unique traits. These should be formed as the game progresses. Suppose in one game you conduct a lot of battles, then you become militaristic.

That, however, will make all 16 civs into one, other than cosmetic differences they are all the same.

The unique abilities are supposed to differentiate civs from each other, by choosing prominent traits of these tribes/nations.

The civ-specific abilities are fine as they are, there are more important things to fix than what I reckon is "colour" (you can turn them off, afterall, IIRC).

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The unique abilities are supposed to differentiate civs from each other, by choosing prominent traits of these tribes/nations.

It´s about slightly different strategies suited for each civ. Added replay value. 16 distinctive civs instead of one civ with different colours. I like it. And yes, if you don´t like it, you can turn it off.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see any reason for adding huge complexity to the game for little gain.

That could be true. A bit of complexity is inevitable, the benefit should be checked, IMHO

If you want real realism, no civ should start out with any unique traits. These should be formed as the game progresses.

I disagree: after all you start with an advanced tribe, who already had developed some trait (and you must simulate this by random or preassigned)

Suppose in one game you conduct a lot of battles, then you become militaristic.
That, however, will make all 16 civs into one, other than cosmetic differences they are all the same.

I see your point, but not: they start different, they have different tactics during time, they act similarly during war but starting from different point.

The civ-specific abilities are fine as they are, there are more important things to fix than what I reckon is "colour" (you can turn them off, afterall, IIRC).

More important thing to fix? Maybe, we can ask Yin26 too

But if I turn off this I lost also Unique Units and Golden Age, so I must take an "all-or-nothing" choice: I would prefer to tune this and keep all the others.

Anyway, we know this will not change very likely into any patch or expansion pack, so you can be happy and I'll live with the game as it is

[Urban Ranger]

More important things to fix? How about:

1. AI
2. AI
3. AI



I am not sure if most advanced tribes are predisposed toward one thing or another. It will be controvesial one way or another.

[Adm.Naismith]

Now that news (see "Developer update: wonders" on Civ3 official site) show how intricate the Specific abilities are with Wonders, Golden Age, etc. I see how difficult can be to keep in control all the interactions beetwen Abilities and all the relevant part

Firaxis is changing "on the road" Abilities of China to fit with the Great Wall to trigger the Golden Age.

I hope they are doing a great balancing job, because anything wrong can crash all the building

Another risk of this design (as happened in SMAC/SMACX) is that it limits the practice possibility to add/expand the original set of civ with new truly original and quite differentiate bunch, expensive to balance once more from scratch...

[Kc7mxo]

I disagree that this will add an "interesting" facet to the game. Because you will always know how civs will react. What point is there in that? A civs abilities should NOT BE RACE RELATED.

To implie that certain races are supior at certain things implies that we are all subspecies of humanity with different inherent abilties.

The special attributes firaxis is putting in are culturally based, work ethic, miliatrism, all relate to your cluture. And cultures change too friking fast to make this a foundational piece of the game.

And yes, I know we can turn it off. And I will. I just wish that they hadn't wasted time messing with this.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
And yes, I know we can turn it off. And I will. I just wish that they hadn't wasted time messing with this.

Firaxis doesn't add tons of new features to the old skeleton of Civ 2 IMHO; they added Unique units, Civ specific abilities (from SMAC), Golden Ages... missing all this will be a deep cut on half of innovations.

Give them a try; swithing off is a step near to the Big Off Swith of Always: don't buy the game

[Sandman]

I reckon your civ should gain 'skills' or 'traits' based on the actions and experiences of the player.

Your Babylonians start out with wisdom (instead of science) and polytheistic religion.

At the end of the game they could have skills like science, atheism, agriculture, guerrilla warfare, overseas trade and roadbuilding.

Building lots of roads gives the opportunity to learn roadbuilding, which the player may or may not accept.

There should be a maximum number of skills, so that the player must discard obselete ones.

And it should be possible to trade skills with other civs.

Unique units should reflect your skills- so a civ with tank warfare will be able to produce more sophisticated tanks than the other civs.

[Kc7mxo]

"""""""""""""""
Give them a try; swithing off is a step near to the Big Off Swith of Always: don't buy the game
"""""""""""""""

I may give it a try. The problem is that you're right. If this is the only addition they're making, why should I buy it? I may not. But one purchase more or less shouldn't hurt Firaxis.

But you know what I think is dumber than civ attributes? Great leaders. I don't need no stinking leader in my civ. He has the lifespan of what, three turns? Oh wait. Maybe he's immortal too! Wow. I hope he doesn't try a coup. ick.

One new concept I do like though, is the trade. It looks great! I hope it works as well as I hope.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
"""""""""""""""
Give them a try; swithing off is a step near to the Big Off Swith of Always: don't buy the game
"""""""""""""""

I may give it a try. The problem is that you're right. If this is the only addition they're making, why should I buy it? I may not. But one purchase more or less shouldn't hurt Firaxis.

But you know what I think is dumber than civ attributes? Great leaders. I don't need no stinking leader in my civ. He has the lifespan of what, three turns? Oh wait. Maybe he's immortal too! Wow. I hope he doesn't try a coup. ick.

One new concept I do like though, is the trade. It looks great! I hope it works as well as I hope.

LOL I too have an inherent, anticipatory dislike of the "great leaders". Not only is it unnecessary and unrealistc, and imho not much fun (another random quirk), but I also dislike the concept of personal glorification.

[Adm.Naismith]

I have a mixed feeling about Great People in Civ III.

If Firaxis cutted another option and limit them only to Great General for military purpose, my thumbs will probably show down (of course only playing the real game will prove me right or wrong).

If they are really extended the concept to Great people of Art, Science, Exploration, etc. I'm more optimist.
I'm not for personal glorification, but that's an old problem related to glorification of people still in their life, where politic power and showbiz often glorify the wrong person.

History usually clean up things a bit, so I'm confident we can have a list of great people of the past that own the right to be mentioned in Civ III