If you don't like Firaxis' defaults...

[Steve Clark]

Sorry to keep hollering about this but a simple declarative statement needs to be made as we get closer to the release.

Don’t feel you have to accept Firaxis’ defaults for Civ3.

In other words,

if you don’t like any of the 16 default civs, customize one yourself or download someone else’s custom civs;

if you don’t like any of the default terrain graphics, customize one yourself or download someone else’s custom terrains;

if you don’t like any of the default unit graphics, customize one yourself or download someone else’s custom units;

if you don’t like any of the default unique units, customize one yourself or download someone else’s custom units or not play with them;

if you don’t like any of the default maps, customize one yourself or download someone else’s custom maps;

and if you don’t like the default tech tree, customize one yourself or download someone else’s custom tree;

and on and on to include scenarios, wonders, buildings, skins, animations, etc.

I believe there will be nothing terribly wrong with the defaults but they are only a starting point for customizing them into something you might like better. Just like with Civ2, the defaults worked just fine but all of the thousands of custom files allow it to expand and increase longevity.

[Wiglaf]

I don't think the worries come in with customization features. Sure, there's some concern, but the main attention goes to the AI and graphics (say what you want, but no way am I downloading a third party terrain set or making my own - that didn't happen with SMAC, no reason to think it will here).

Agreed, the defaults are good and can be changed, but any core gameplay problems will probably stick until a hardcore patch or expansion. I can't download a better game from the mod community, that responsibility lies with Firaxis when civ3 ships.

Who complains about the tech tree, anyway?

[red_jon]

Oh, good - another DIY person

Why should we have to do things ourselves if we pay for the game? I seem to remember with both CTP games we have to download loads of patches and mods for them to be any good. If we want to comment on if something is wrong, that is our business

[Shadowstrike]

You have a great point. How many of us that have played Civ since its beginning days have not used customized tech trees, units terrains, and so forth? The greatness of Civ lies in its replayability, flexibility, and adaptability.

Which reminds me, I have to put my customized Civ2 units back in soon.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
You have a great point. How many of us that have played Civ since its beginning days have not used customized tech trees, units terrains, and so forth?

for one, me. And for almost everyone who has never been to apolyton, them too.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
You have a great point. How many of us that have played Civ since its beginning days have not used customized tech trees, units terrains, and so forth? The greatness of Civ lies in its replayability, flexibility, and adaptability.

Perfectly said. CtP and SMAC was not as replayable, flexible and adaptable as Civ2, imo. They were just not designed that way. Civ2 was, and perhaps the lack of understanding of the power and joy of customizing.

wiglaf: What Microprose shipped with Civ2 was just a starting point, knowing full well that any one of us could customize it to our own personal prefences. I didn't have to use the HiRes4 custom units and cities, but I like them (since I helped Tim on them). Nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with not using them. Don't you think having more options in the way things look or act is a good thing? Replayability, flexibility and adaptability are the most important characteristics of any Sid's Civ games.

red_jon: Check out the Customizing vs Modding thread. Your post proves my point in the perception that having to download modpack in CtP was a negative thing, while it's just the opposite with Civ2 where such thing were meant to enhance or just be different for the sake of replayability, flexibility and adaptability.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


for one, me. And for almost everyone who has never been to apolyton, them too.

You're kidding, right? You have NEVER played a Civ2 scenario?

This is not meant for you but just a rhetorical question. If you have not experienced the replayability, flexibility and adaptability of Civ2, how can you comment on the design choices of Civ3??? CtP has or shouldn't have anything to do with Civ3 since that was a completely different product by a very different company. IMO.

[Moral Hazard]

I never again expect to see a game with as many customized units, terrain etc. as civ2 had; because making graphics which look decent now is extremely hard. This of course doesn't effect mod makers, but will make scenarios less accepted, IMO.

It may be superflous to some of you; but when you've got non-animating graphics walking around next to animating ones it seems odd to an average gamer. Plus if they do a CTP and not include a nice sprite creator I'm only expecting a handfull of unit graphics.

BTW does anyone know if there are scenarios packaged with the game? Without prepackaged scenarios I'm a bit worried about scenario support.

[Moral Hazard]

Oh and are you sure that terrain graphics can be edited?

[VetLegion]

how do I edit the MP detault?

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Oh and are you sure that terrain graphics can be edited?

In Civ2, they were no differently graphically than a unit. They would be just small .gif or .bmp patterns, that's all. For example, irrigation has its own slot in the file and if don't like the color (too light of a blue), then just clip out the default and replace it with it one that's darker.

Vet:

[yin26]

Steve knows he has my support, and ultimately it will be guys like him who keep Civ3 on the HD's of the hardcore players among us who see playing a new scenario of Civ is more entertaining than buying a new game.

HOWEVER:

As I've said before, Steve takes a 'Civ Construction Set' approach to the game. But a vast, VAST majority of gamers do not and will not. They expect the game to be either awesome out of the box or close enough that a patch or two will fix any issues. They then expect an X-pack to add what was missing...then another release to add even more.

Very few players can or even want to make the game that they feel the company should have made in the first place.

[Father Beast]

Let's not forget - Comparison Games and succession games.

These two types depend heavily on all the players having the same version. if (heaven forbid) there is a lousy imbalance in game mechanics, then challenges will have to be not just - "small map, 16 civs, raging hordes, deity", but will have to become - "small map, 16 civs, raging hordes, deity, and Sam's rules mod (to prevent ICS)".

Like I said to Korn, a lot of people will refuse to play unless you are using the original rules set, however imbalanced (heaven Forfend) it may be.

Kind of silly, but there it is.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Who complains about the tech tree, anyway?

Me! They put Alphabet before Writing again. I guess I'll just switch the names and it'll cause no problem but it doesn't make any realistic sense! Pictographs and ideographs were well-functioning writing systems long before the alphabet was invented! And what are you going to do with an alphabet if you can't write anything?!

[Moral Hazard]

Steve:

I know you could in Civ2. Whether it can be edited in Civ3 is the question. I'm concerned that the game won't even work well as a Creation Kit. As I've iterated, I'm worried that Firaxis concentrated on the core part of the game, Vanilla SP; and will try to add everything else later.

[korn469]

i agree with father beast, in my opinion all "official" comparison games need to be played with the default ruleset just so it can be benchmarked to any other game played with the default rules

also i think it is perfectly fine to Mod a game for pleasure, but why should i have to figure out how to fix an inherently flawed game? i don't have time to play all of the games i own which aren't flawed, so why waste my time trying to fix a game that is broken? for me it's time to move on to something else

if civ3 is balanced and you are just a freakazoid who thinks that the US CSU should be a swordman then i agree with with Steve
but if one single jet fighter could destroy 200 modern armor units in a single turn then i don't want to have to fix that

Modding is great, but a great game doesn't require the users to balance it

[player1]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Don’t feel you have to accept Firaxis’ defaults for Civ3.

...

I believe there will be nothing terribly wrong with the defaults but they are only a starting point for customizing them into something you might like better. Just like with Civ2, the defaults worked just fine but all of the thousands of custom files allow it to expand and increase longevity.

Still, most people will play with defults in SP, than later in MP (when it comes).

CTP games are exeption because these games vere broked in offical
relesae so some MODing was necessity.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by yin26
Steve knows he has my support, and ultimately it will be guys like him who keep Civ3 on the HD's of the hardcore players among us who see playing a new scenario of Civ is more entertaining than buying a new game.

Truer words have not ever been spoken here, thanks yin.

I understand that perhaps most don't want to bother any of the files and that's fine. Truthfully, I don't mess around much with regular game. I usually swap out the default units.gif file and replace it with a custom one, but that has nothing to do with gameplay, just a new look and feel. Scenarios are what civ is all about for me, but that's an entirely different beast than the regular game.

I am beginning to understand that Civ2 originally did not come with the powerful tools that alot of us have grown to love (I didn't start playing civ until MGE). If such tools are not in the initial release of Civ3, so be it. I guess it'll be there eventually.

[Grumbold]

I've been quite content to change basic things about Civ II like tile and graphic sets (but lets not talk about vanilla/MGE/ToT compatability issues). On the other hand, I disagree that scenarios are an essential part of the Civ flavour. Civ works well as civ i.e. an attempt to compress the sweep of 6000 years into a 1-3 day game. It does so by making sacrifices about supply, logistics, tactics, terrain, weather, morale, education, command and control, productivity, scientific progress, movement rates and many other things.

Almost all of the scenarios I played merely highlighted why no-one should ever attempt to try and turn the game into something it is incapable of being. There is far better software available dedicated to any tactical or theatre-level conflict you want to recreate. Civ scenarios are for people who lack the knowledge or desire to shell out more cash or trawl abandonware sites for good games depicting the period.

[Steve Clark]

But no one has developed a [fill in the blank] game that plays like Civ, right? That's the point. Civ2 (at least) is simple elegance that has great depth and why would I chose to play an overcomplex game like EU when I can use the familiar Civ2 parameters in an Age of Exploration scenario? I have played many American Civil War games that have been released, both the strategic and tactical kinds. None of the strategic-level ones came close to matching the playability of Alex's scenario. Also, can you tell me of a better strategic-level game set in the Ancient Age than Kull's Seeds of Greatness scenario? The only game/time period that I like better is Imperialism II and Conquest of the New World. But that is just one time period. You can't bring up the AoE-type/WW2 RTS games because those are at a different scale than Civ.

While I know that not a whole lot of folks care about scenarios, many of them have been my favorite games of that time period because I love Civ2 and its design.

[Steve Clark]

I'm not sure if this is real or not, but check out this screen shot...

http://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/a...iv_vikings.jpg

Custom city graphics for a custom civ. Imagine that.

[Grumbold]

I can't say for sure that I've played any of those particular Civ scenarios. I just know that while I can cope with Civ's oversimplifications in order to cover the spread of history in a playable length of time, when I want to focus down on a specific era or conflict I need the sort of additional complexities included that they had to deal with at the time. Civ just doesn't have them. A different mindset I guess.