Should there be more "Civilization Abilities"?

[Jeje2]

In Civ3 every nation gets two special abilities out of six possible.
I just posted a list with the possiple options in this thread.

As we can count there are (6*5/2 = 15 unigue combinations).
And as for now all except one is already used with the 16 nations to come.

So should there in the expansion pack be a seventh civilization ability?
(Thus making 7*6/2 = 21unigue combinations)
Opinions?

If yes, then the difficult question is of course what this seventh "civilization ability" should be? And what free tech it should give and which special effects?

And this isn't a simple problem. Just look at this picture, you can see that there are seven first level techs. And all of them are already used. (Militaristic gives either Warrior Code or The Wheel) So we would have to split these, or have more first level techs in the expansion pack.

Any Opinions?

[lockstep]

I started a thread about this topic several weeks ago, but didn´t get many replies (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=24355).

Abstract: I advocate at least the introduction of "fertile" as a civ-specific factor in Civ3 (Free tech - pottery; Effect 1 - extra food in city center; Effect 2 - production costs reduced for aqueducts and sewer systems). And given the 16 civilizations already in the game, I´d consider the Chinese as a scientific and fertile civ, the Indians as a religious and fertile civ.

(edit: spelling)

[Provost Harrison]

I think fertile would be a good choice, or some equivalent with these attributes. I can't really think of anything else that would fit well...

[Saint Marcus]

I was thinking the same thing (though I'd call them agricultural instead of fertile).

Another suggestion, how about Maritiem?

[Marcus Agrippa]

An excellent idea... fertile civs would have extra large populations. Might I suggest, for the bonus for fertile:

All fertile civ cities can grow 25% larger than would otherwise be allowed... eg A city without an Aqueduct could grow to 8*1.25= 10.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Marcus Agrippa
All fertile civ cities can grow 25% larger than would otherwise be allowed... eg A city without an Aqueduct could grow to 8*1.25= 10.

Good idea. This should make 'fertile' or 'agricultural' civs even more attractive for the player, provided aqueducts and sewer systems are real limiting factors during the medieval and industrial times of a Civ3 game. In fact, something like this was done in SMAC, where the peacekeepers could grow their bases to size 9 (instead 7) without hab complexes.

I don´t get it why Firaxis didn´t include a fertile/agricultural civ-specific ability. It was one of SMAC´s SE factors. It provides interesting gameplay options. It is more politically correct than the 'militaristic' ability. With the modification suggested by Marcus Agrippa, it should not even stimulate ICS ...

[aaglo]

The "fertile" special ability feels good, I agree.

Here's another idea (not that good )
Because there is a "militaristic" special ability, why there can't be a "peaceful" special ability? I know they are not the opposites, but close. And peaceful ability could for example gain like 20 or 25 % increase in cultural values (would that be too much?). It might also be dependant on the current diplomatic states (mainly war/peace; if in war with someone > decreases and the opposite).
So could this be a possible special ability?

[lockstep]

Originally posted by aaglo
Because there is a "militaristic" special ability, why there can't be a "peaceful" special ability? I know they are not the opposites, but close. And peaceful ability could for example gain like 20 or 25 % increase in cultural values (would that be too much?).

IIRC, the 'religious' ability, which reduces costs for religious buildings and therefore is suited for a cultural strategy, also helps boosting your civ´s reputation. OTOH, this naturally doesn´t apply in multiplayer games ...

If something similar to SMAC´s council (the U.N.) is included in Civ3, 'peaceful' could be an ability that gives you a vote multiplier for global politics and would be very helpful when striving for diplomatic (as opposed to cultural) victory. (Again, SMAC´s peacekeeper faction crosses one´s mind.) A possible game balancing problem is that this ability would not be operative in ancient and perhaps in medieval times.

BTW, as the discussion about additional civ-specific abilities is more lively now than a month ago, I may as well quote my former suggestions:

- "Vigilant": Free tech - alphabet; Effect 1 - spies have a higher rate of success; Effect 2 - reduced civil disorder due to warfare;

- "Close to nature" (for lack of a better term): Free tech - ceremonial burial; Effect 1: reduced pollution; Effect 2 - discovery of ressources more likely.

Some remarks: It may be questionable to introduce an "environmental" factor that will come into effect only late in the game. Also, a "vigilance" factor is likely to be termed as a "racial template" - all the more as a "vigilant" civilization would be a "bad guy" in a typical Civ game.

Note that I assumed a Civ2-like espionage system when talking about 'vigilance'. Anyway, I like the thought of a Civ that somewhat resembles the Darloks, MOO´s spying masters.

Any comments?

[aaglo]

About the peaceful ability
IIRC, the cultural level of the city (cultural value?) affects on many things: revolting and "rejoining" of conquered cities, mood of neighbouring cities and city borders. Now, if cultural value of religious buildings and wonders were 20% higher than average, that might be a good advantage.
But how is it actually: does a finishing of a certain building (a temple for example) expand the city borders, or does the borders according to the accumulated culture??? I think it was the first, but i'm not sure.
If it is the latter, then it would mean earlier expansion of borders... right?

Now for the second advantage: it might be improved diplomatic skills (pretty dull), reduced cost on settlers (), reduced rioting (just what the doctor ordered ). Who knows, please speak up!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by aaglo
Because there is a "militaristic" special ability, why there can't be a "peaceful" special ability?

Right now a very simple reason occured to me: Firaxis´six abilities can be combined reasonably. In contrast to that, 'militaristic/peaceful' doesn´t really make sense.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by lockstep


Right now a very simple reason occured to me: Firaxis´six abilities can be combined reasonably. In contrast to that, 'militaristic/peaceful' doesn´t really make sense.

Yes, I know that. And I thought of it too, and to me it would not be a problem
But I am just being stubborn, I want that peaceful ability

[Felch]

How about diplomatic. It could be a French ability, as opposed to cowardly. I guess you could be a diplomatic militarist, seeing as how America loves bombing the shet out of countries and then diplomatically telling Europe to shove it its ass. But really it's a French thing, I guess. It could give bonuses in trade and treaties with the AI, and be utterly useless in MP. Just like the Eiffel Tower wonder.

[lockstep]

I don´t want a civ-specific ability that is completely useless in multiplayer. (Who said there will be multiplayer? ... sorry, bad joke.) However, if 'diplomatic' would include a vote multiplier for a SMAC-style U.N. council (which I assume will be included in Civ3), it would be an interesting choice. Unfortunately, at the moment 'diplomatic' bears to much resemblance to 'religious' in gameplay terms.

edit: spelling

[Saint Marcus]

* Agricultural
* Maritiem
* Diplomatic

[Gramphos]

I hope the editors will allow us to add abilities on our own.
The only problem doing it (if they add the ability) should be to make enough options to set to make new.

To have a Diplomatic ability you would maybe have to set one of the effects to other nations are quicker to forget bad things you've done. And Other civs has easier to accept your deals.
Selecting a starting tech shouldn't be a problem, but setting the two effects could be a problem making customizable.

If we can't add abilities on out own they must add some abilities to an expansion. If we can add on our own, it would still be good with new abilities, and maybe also new things to set for own made abilities in the editors.

[Jeje2]

Trader
Free tech: The Wheel (Thus only Warrior Code for Militaristic)
Effect 1: Redused cost of building caravans (or whatever they are)
Effect 2: Bonus form tradepacts for city center

This would still be different from Commersial and a nation with Trading&Commersial could exist.

Comments, please...

[Gramphos]

Everything depends on what the meaning of 'Free Tech' is. It could be a tech that you will get for free as soon as you have all the prerequires, and in that way we could have more then the first column tech to choose from.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Jeje2
Trader
Free tech: The Wheel (Thus only Warrior Code for Militaristic)
Effect 1: Redused cost of building caravans (or whatever they are)
Effect 2: Bonus form tradepacts for city center

This would still be different from Commersial and a nation with Trading&Commersial could exist.

Comments, please...

There will be no Caravans. All trade are made with the trade network. That must be changed to something else; Maybe no upkeep for Marketplaces.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Gramphos
I hope the editors will allow us to add abilities on our own.

I hope so, too, but that would mean a very high level of adaptability. IIRC, even in SMAC you could tweak the factions abilities, but not change the subjacent SE mechanism.

Everything depends on what the meaning of 'Free Tech' is. It could be a tech that you will get for free as soon as you have all the prerequires, and in that way we could have more then the first column tech to choose from.

I agree. I think that defining of the effects of a civ-specific ability is far more important than mulling over its free tech.

To have a Diplomatic ability you would maybe have to set one of the effects to other nations are quicker to forget bad things you've done. And Other civs has easier to accept your deals.

While the second effect is also included in the 'religious' ability, I like your first idea very much. If the U.N. is included in Civ3, that would ensue that a 'diplomatic' ability is sufficiently different from 'religious'. Let´s see ...

- "Diplomatic": Free tech - alphabet; Effect 1 - reduced ostracism due to atrocities and espionage; Effect 2 - vote multiplier in the U.N. council

To this, add my favourite:

- "Fertile (agricultural)": Free tech - pottery; Effect 1 - extra food in city center; Effect 2 - enlarged city size without aqueducts or sewer systems

Mark L - your 'maritime' ability sounds interesting (SMAC´s pirates crosses my mind), but could you specify the effects?

Jeje2 - I think that 'trader' would bear to much resemblance to the 'commercial' ability (after all, there are no caravans in Civ3).

BTW, there are 28 possible combinations to choose 2 civ-specific abilities out of 8 ... sufficient for a substantial expansion pack ...

[Jeje2]

Lockstep:
You may be right about Trader being too close to commersial.

I also like the agricultural, but I wouldn't like to allow bigger cities. One has to be careful so a single civilization ability don't become to strong (=unbalansed). So skill 2 could be instead something posive againgt hunger for example. (Ex. City undernurishment halved. So if a nomal city would have a situation of -2food/turn a agricultural civilization would have only -1/turn)

Maritime:
Free tech: Map Making (after you discover Writing&Pottery)
Skill 1: Increased sight at sea
Skill 2: Production costs reduced for Naval Units

[lockstep]

Jeje2, so far we have only general ideas even about the effects of Firaxis´civ-specific abilities. 'Extra commerce in city centers' (commercial) or 'workers work faster' (industrious) doesn´t tell us how far-reaching these effects are. Therefore, I wouldn´t exclude an effect from the outset because he is potentially unbalancing.

BTW, in SMAC the peacekeepers could grow their bases to size 9 (instead 7) without hab complexes (the equivalent of aqueducts), and most SMAC players seem to think that they are a reasonably balanced faction alltogether.

About the 'maritime' ability: Isn´t it possible that a civ is stuck on a medium-sized continent amidst oceans, so that naval units can go nowhere in the early game (that is, without the Lighthouse wonder)? Did you intend that? (Note that this problem also occurs with Firaxis´'expansionist' ability.)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by lockstep
If the U.N. is included in Civ3, that would ensue that a 'diplomatic' ability is sufficiently different from 'religious'. Let´s see ...

- "Diplomatic": Free tech - alphabet; Effect 1 - reduced ostracism due to atrocities and espionage; Effect 2 - vote multiplier in the U.N. council

U.N. council has been confirmed by Firaxis (http://www.civ3.com/asktheteam_091401.cfm). I suggest that a 'diplomatic' civ´s vote multiplier also lowers the requirements to gain a council position. (E.g. with a multiplier of 1.25, a 'diplomatic' civ would only need to control 20% of the world´s territory or population.)

[aaglo]

"Ancient" ability-
*Civ gets a head start in culture - like 20 culture points or smthng. That would result as earlier expansion of borders...
*Civ gets an additional settler and worker - representing the "older nation" (This may be too close to the expansionistic ability).
*A city of an ancient civilization never completely assimilates to the conquering civ - result is extra "drones" or "unhappines" for eternity....

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by lockstep
Right now a very simple reason occured to me: Firaxis´six abilities can be combined reasonably. In contrast to that, 'militaristic/peaceful' doesn´t really make sense.

I never found 'religious/scientific' to make much sense, but I guess that's just the atheist in me talking. And there would be no 'militaristic/peaceful' civ if we cut it out of the game, i.e. it could be one of the 5 combinations not used. But I still really like the fertile ability (although I would have to agree with Mark L and suggest it be changed to agricultural). Maybe someday I will replace militaristic with agricultural...militaristic can fit for every one of the Civ 3 civs at one point or another, and I don't like the idea of stereotyping entire civilizations as militaristic...

[krzysiek]

And how about disabilities or penalties?
For example:
Russia - more unhappy citizens (Tzars and then totalitarism)
Zulus - can't build cities near north and south pole (they are from Africa)
Roman - increased corruption (large empire)
India - weaker economy (majority of population are very poor)

Sorry if I offended some of you. My apologies.
That's the point. It is too controversial.
Firaxis won't do that because people would feel offended.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by krzysiek
Zulus - can't build cities near north and south pole (they are from Africa)

But serioulsy, if Africans can't build cities near the poles, how come Northern European civs could build cities in Africa and near the equator? Civ games are about rewriting history you know.

[Juggernaut]

Yes. The more distinct, the merrier.

[cyril25376]

I don't like the fertile (agricultural) ability, because I am afraid it does unbalance the game. You are getting pop points to easy. Think of the possibility of ICS

[knott]

Fertile is ridiculous. Roman was militaristic, England was industrial and China is fertile . It make no sense.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by cyril25376
I don't like the fertile (agricultural) ability, because I am afraid it does unbalance the game. You are getting pop points to easy. Think of the possibility of ICS

Maybe you´re right and this is the reason why Firaxis didn´t include an 'agricultural' ability. OTOH, the effect of 'additional food in the city centre' (wich certainly encourages ICS) could be replaced with something that allows only big cities to grow faster.

Originally posted by knott
Fertile is ridiculous. Roman was militaristic, England was industrial and China is fertile . It make no sense.

Some Apolytoners have always termed the civ-specific abilities 'racial templates'. I don´t think so. However, I feel that Firaxis 'militaristic' ability is more questionable than the suggested 'agricultural' (or 'fertile') ability.

(BTW, China is 'militaristic' in Civ3. Now THAT is ridiculous!)