Way too much free information - Page 2

xmax · November 7, 2001, 16:31

On the much debated 'border realism' issue.

Since I don't think anybody disputes borders in Industrial or Modern ages let's talk about ancient times. This is where cultural influence idea comes into play - in ancient times the land wasn't really vacant: there were small barbarian tribes that occasionally got organized (mostly for war purposes). These tribes had no agriculture and were constantly migrating inevitably stumbling on a city or its outskirts and being awed by stories about migthy armies and cultural achievements of that city's civilization. When they moved on they passed the knowledge to other tribes they met and this is what's called cultural influence in ancient times.

That's exactly why barbarians who besieged Rome weren't the same barbarians that set out to destroy the Roman empire. The closer they got to the borders (and the further within them) the more 'civilized' they became until finally, after besieging Rome itself, all they wanted was to become Roman citizens!

Coming back to the 'scout on the mountain seeing borders' issue: that scout is not only seeing the signs of civilization (farms, roads etc.) but also gets info from the local tribes and can hence make an educated guess as to where a border and a city might be.

Sikander · November 7, 2001, 17:07

It seems like a lot of these issues come down to attempts to get around a design flaw in all of these Civ games, namely completely unrealistic movement allowances. In one year a scout can cover a thousand miles or more over unknown inhospitable terrain. Imagine how much more information an ancient era scout could uncover in the decade or more he has to work with. Look at what Louis and Clark were able to accomplish with horses and canoes, or Marco Polo, or the Vikings, etc. To make up in a small way for this, a bit of information is given for free. It's an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate solution, but IMO leaves you more hindered in a lot of ways than you would be if your units could actually move with more than a tiny fraction of a realistic movement allowance.

Another attempt to fix this allows more or less speed of light communications in the ancient era. Your scout is thousands of miles from home mapping away in the unknown, and is ambushed and destroyed by natives. Should you be able to retain the knowledge uncovered by the scout? Doubtful.

I wish instead that the movement rates were within an order of magnitude or two of reality. My gripe is with this, and not with the incomplete solution to the basic design flaw, without which none of this would have been necessary.

rah · November 7, 2001, 17:11

Not to get picky because I do agree with what you guys are saying, but the point I was making was when you just see the border and nothing past it. So, you aren't seeing those signs of civilization because they are out of your vision. You've just climbed a high mountain and you've reached the peak that finally allows vision of the other side. You have had no contact with people on the other side, and those that you talked too on the way up usually are not aware of what is on the other side. (at least in ancient times). Once you got nearer the border you would start to get a clue. But not at first from 3-4 squares away. Maybe once you were able to see INSIDE the border, it would make sense, which would at least expose the scout a little more.

Anytime after ancient times, I've been convinced here that borders, while not being lines on the ground, would be obvious to a scout.

RAH

I'm not going to go into realistic time frame of movement. But I do like the concept that the scout would have to return home before you would know anything, but it would make the game a bit ridiculous. Maybe give an order to a scout to go east for 50 years and return. and 100 years later you see the map. (ok, that idea kinda sucks)

RAH

Thantos · November 8, 2001, 12:55

When I said that seeing into stacks made the coding easier. What I meant was that if a players intel on a stack was less accurate. Then you start have developing code and rule sets in the game to determine how accurate a players information on the stack should be. Which adds another layer to be playtested. Not something that wouldnt make for a nice tweak on the game but something that does add to the complexity of the game with a return benifit that is questionable at times, especially in game eras where each turn is measured in decades.

As far as the border issue while I doubt the scout crests the hill in the ancient era and sees the border line especially as he has had no contact with that nation. I would be more incline to agree with you their in the ancient era if each turn during the ancient era wasnt so long. Sitting their decade after decade just a square or two away from the border and not realizing that their is a active civilization nearby strikes me as the more unrealistic decision

DanS · November 8, 2001, 13:39

The borders and civ discovery issue is actually pretty big when using the leach method. You can ALWAYS find a civ if you're in the general location, considering that the borders are shown, even if all of the opposing civ's controlled territory is still black. If you took away this last detail and made it so that you couldn't see the border unless you saw over the controlled territory (i.e., one square in), this would make it much more difficult and makes good sense.

MazaNaza · November 8, 2001, 16:01

At least as far as the "seeing the best defender in a city" goes, you can turn that off. Just deselect the "show units over cities" option in the preferences.

--> Norm

Cookie Monster · November 9, 2001, 13:13

Has anyone seen this?

The manual states that after establishing an embassy with another civ you should be able to view the number and composition of his units in the military advisor screen. This is not happening in my game. I understand that you need a spy in his capital to view his troop locations but why can't I see his OOB (order of battle, or units) like the manual says?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Madine · November 9, 2001, 13:34

You need to have a spy in his capitol to see that info.

Seeing his troop locations is a specific spy mission.

Cookie Monster · November 9, 2001, 14:31

Thanks for the info! I haven't played a game yet where I survive long enough to make it to the industrial age yet so that definately answers my question.

Good gaming!

Blaupanzer · November 9, 2001, 14:53

Check your history again. You get too little information in Civ III, not too much. Ancient lands were filled with tiny groups of hunter-gatherers, fishermen, and minor traveling merchants, all with geographic and cultural knowledge. The people who founded Rome knew a lot about the Mediterranean, the people in the first cities of Egypt knew a lot about Northeast Africa, the Chinese knew a lot about East Asia. Borders are the point at which small patrols would approach such folk about bothering the local foragers/farmers. Any of the sundry wanderers would know where they were. If you've ever lived in country where settlements are spread out, you know that folks take you up into the hills to see greater distances and then tell you what they know about what you can see. Your scouts/explorer is not a single person, but a group, capable of speaking to many people they meet.

As to the unit stacks, I agree that determining the difference between a regular and an elite would be tough for your farmers/foragers, but numbers would be obvious.

City defences were/are not very secret either. Then, as now, the locals knew which units were in the city and their deployment to a pretty clear degree. This would be info available from almost any peasant that had ever been to town.