A Fully 3D, RTS Version of Civilization

Slingshot · March 10, 2000, 01:22

The Great Hugo Rune found a reference to an apparently new twist on RTS. You can check this game out at http://www.dailyradar.com/previews/g...eview_369.html

I personally don't like RTS.

But suppose we find out that Firaxis is taking a RTS build of Dinos to heart, and has decided to do the same with Civ III?

What sorts of things should we recommend they steer clear of?

Victor Galis · March 10, 2000, 22:35

They should steer clear of a sperical map, and of RTS. It would be uncivlike. RTS is evil, it is for those cheap "strategy" games. If you compared them in terms of alcohol, RTSes, are the beers of the game world, while Civ2 is a fine wine. Nothing wrong with having a beer, but obviously the wine is superior in design and such.

Gord McLeod · March 11, 2000, 15:34

I'd rather Civ 3 weren't just a rehash of a game we've all played forever. I want to see a spherical map - I was disappointed that wasn't in Civ2 and SMAC. I would prefer it to be turn-based rather than RTS, but a hybrid of RTS and TBS might be fun, if they do it right and emphasize the TBS aspects... the late-game stages would get pretty hard to play if it's more towards RTS.

Slingshot · March 12, 2000, 00:21

Victor! NO spherical map? Aaaugh! But because we both live in great countries who hold democracy so dear, I will defend your right to an opinion.

Gord! TBS might be fun? Aaaugh! But because we both live in great provinces who hold Bob and Doug MacKenzie so dear, I will defend your right to beer-calibre ideas.

Actually I guess there could be a benefit to some RTS elements (maybe for battles). But Victor, I agree that the core of RTS is evil.

Gord McLeod · March 12, 2000, 00:33

quote:

Gord! TBS might be fun? Aaaugh! But because we both live in great provinces who hold Bob and Doug MacKenzie so dear, I will defend your right to beer-calibre ideas.

No no no... read that over again. A form of TBS/RTS hybrid might be fun. Civilization does NOT work as RTS... AoE tried it, and IMO failed. It didn't capture the elements of Civ that I enjoy. Lots of other people liked it, so good for them, but it isn't for me and I don't want CivIII to look like it.

Victor Galis · March 12, 2000, 14:07

OK, how would you implement a spheircal map? No, one's come up with a way, and I would very much prefer the current system over a poorly done sphere.

Joe Bourque · March 12, 2000, 15:36

A REAL-time-strategy game which stretches over six thousand years of human history would take a little longer to play then I would like.

I have nothing against RTS, but it does seem slightly inappropriate for Civilization. Just because RTS makes some kinds of games good does not mean EVERY game needs to be shoehorned into the RTS mold.

I any case, I think we can say for certain that Civ3 will NOT be RTS. After all, one of the reasons Tim Train said he left Firaxis was because he was burned out on Turn Based games. That kinda implies Civ will be turn based, no?

Joe
[This message has been edited by Joe Bourque (edited March 12, 2000).]

Gord McLeod · March 12, 2000, 17:05

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis on 03-12-2000 01:07 PM
OK, how would you implement a spheircal map? No, one's come up with a way, and I would very much prefer the current system over a poorly done sphere.

Check out Populous - The Beginning. It was done quite well.

Victor Galis · March 12, 2000, 17:28

Yes, but does it use tiles? Tiles are an integral part of Civ. Civ without tiles is like a Civ RTS.

Slingshot · March 13, 2000, 00:15

I've been playing around with drawing spheres on AutoCAD. It looks like it is quite easy to put a triangular mesh on any size of globe. Of course, six triangles make a hex, and a hex would make a great shape for a Civ tile...

Civ II and CTP1 simply use diamonds on a 2D plane. The tiles are made to simulate 3D. I think the same could be done on a zoomed-in globe

And something wierd:

What about making a RTS window for battles?
Everything else would be TBS. Each traditional unit icon would represent, say, 30 soldiers. Stacked units would also work. It could make for a long game, but then you get all sorts of new possibilities!

tniem · April 8, 2000, 21:33

I personally would not want the game to have a RTS battles if the rest is turn based. You think out the entire game like a chess match trying to prepare for the right moment and then suddenly you have to fly the mouse around really fast or you are toast. Although it would simulate the immediate of heat of battle, but for that I have WarCraft 3 coming out some time in 2001, 2002, or on Blizzard time in 2020. Civ III should remain a chess match or as it was elequently called a fine wine.

Gord McLeod · April 8, 2000, 21:49

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis on 03-12-2000 04:28 PM
Yes, but does it use tiles? Tiles are an integral part of Civ. Civ without tiles is like a Civ RTS.

Nope, it doesn't use tiles, nor does it need to. Most RTS games have been tile-based... I don't see what tiles or their lack have to do with whether a game is RTS or TBS. I'd prefer to see tiles go away, myself, as long as they can keep it feeling like Civ.

Lord Maxwell · April 9, 2000, 11:57

Nobody's made a good spherical map? Atleast someone more than I played popolous in the beginning.
Now, it is hard to make a sphere if the tiles are square, but if they are the nice six-sided things from war-game maps and d&d it's simple as pie. (Even I could do it.)

Victor Galis · April 9, 2000, 17:06

"Most RTS games have been tile-based... I don't see what tiles or their lack have to do with whether a game is RTS or TBS. I'd prefer to see tiles go away, myself, as long as they can keep it feeling like Civ."

-My point was that civ3 wouldn't be civ, if it was RTS or without tiles. Tiles are critical to it's feeling like civ.

And no, you can't make a map out of congruent hexagons, we've been over this a million times.

Gord McLeod · April 9, 2000, 23:09

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Galis on 04-09-2000 05:06 PM
-My point was that civ3 wouldn't be civ, if it was RTS or without tiles. Tiles are critical to it's feeling like civ.

You mean it wouldn't be Civilization or Civilization II. It would be Civilization III. I'm sure there was someone hanging around when Civ2 was being worked on saying "The tiles can't be diamonds or it's not going to be Civilization." The whole idea is to create a new game... a revolution of the genre. Believe it or not, some of us would actually prefer something that isn't a simple rehash of what's been done a zillion times before.

April 10, 2000, 01:09

About the TBS/RTS discussion, I for one would prefer a straight TBS game. RTS is good, but I can't see it working for a Civ like game. As for 3D, I'm still not sure. I wouldn't mind seeing a 3D Civ provided that the 3D idea is actually practical and not a 'looks great but doesn't really work' idea.

The Mad Viking · April 10, 2000, 13:03

Just say no to RTS!

What does everyone think about simultaneous turns? It didn't make the top 5 new ideas of EC3, but it was close IIRC.

I played a hex board game of tactical combat using shorthand simultaneous turns, and it was terrific.

Could be a toggle option. Very good for MP as there would be much less waiting.

Ubergeek · April 10, 2000, 13:26

Perhaps the ONLY thing Sid could do to stop me from buying Civ3 is to make it RTS. The way I see it, I'll be burning in Hell long before I ever pay money for another RTS. The whole point of Civ is to think ahead, to plan, to come up with towering schemes and ideas that take hours to play out. RTS requires and allows no more thinking than it takes to mount the next tank rush. It's all about how fast you can click, and I'm too damned old to care about that.

And as far as a spherical map goes, it would be nice but I don't think it's essential. Not for me, anyway.

------------------
Better living through tyranny

April 10, 2000, 13:53

RTS? TBS? IIRC? Is there anybody who's able and/or wants to explain me those weird shorties...

pris · April 10, 2000, 15:57

Civ is a TBS game it is NOT a RTS. If you want an RTS style civ game buy AOE.

TBS = Turn Based Strategy game
RTS = Real Time Strategy game
IIRC = If I Recall Corectly

Grier · April 11, 2000, 07:22

Although not a fan of RTS, DuneII was good but its gameplay has been re-hashed in almost every RTS game since, that is until Shogun: Total War comes out which will redefine the whole RTS genre.

Personally I would prefer civIII to be TBS, although RTS could work if it was done well.

Earthling7 · April 12, 2000, 00:21

I read through the first couple of posts (I'll read the rest later) so if I'm repeating someone... sorry.

I checked the link and I FEEL PHYSICALLY SICK! Sorry.

Seriously, I would not buy a 3D Civ. No way. 3D is overrated and ugly and Civ is not some Quake or something...

Civ is better than that.

Steve Clark · April 12, 2000, 00:26

quote:

Originally posted by Ubergeek on 04-10-2000 01:26 PM
Perhaps the ONLY thing Sid could do to stop me from buying Civ3 is to make it RTS. The way I see it, I'll be burning in Hell long before I ever pay money for another RTS. The whole point of Civ is to think ahead, to plan, to come up with towering schemes and ideas that take hours to play out. RTS requires and allows no more thinking than it takes to mount the next tank rush. It's all about how fast you can click, and I'm too damned old to care about that.

And as far as a spherical map goes, it would be nice but I don't think it's essential. Not for me, anyway.

Perfectly said and I agree completely.

April 12, 2000, 03:51

UberGeek & Earthling7:

Amen! Focus development on the AI and gameplay (especially simultaneous execution). No pseudo-strategy clickfests and glitzfests.

Earthling7 · April 13, 2000, 08:16

Having read through the whole thread I have something to add.

3D and RTS, overrated and overhyped, sure. Let's give you a couple of examples.

1. X-COM. The first one was mindblowing (and had a round globe

). The game was in real time, but the missions turn-based. I think it must be the most strategically challenging game I ever played. X-COM: Apocalypse introduced real-time missions. A lot of the strategy was lost, but with varying speed control and exellent control system, it didn't harm the game. Even if you didn't like that, there was the option to play turn-based.

2. AOE: I liked the first one, but got bored by the second one after a couple of missions. I had waited for the game for over a year, and when it came out, I played it for less that a week. Why? The only thing you do is build buildings to build units to crush the opponent. Civ has so much more.

3. Airport Inc.: A business simulation, you are in charge of an airport. You build, set prises and do the usual stuuf required by an airport manager. Quite an absorbing game, but the one thing people find groundbreaking about it is that it's in 3D. Sure, you can zoom, pan, fly around, see everything from any angle... but the fact of the matter is that 3D is not very pretty. Also, it is very heavy and you need a monster PC unless you want to play the game in real time (1 year takes 1 year to play). I would have preferred normal isometric view, a la Sims and X-COM.

Point being? RTS can be cool, but not everywhere. 3D should not be used for 3D's sake. If it enhances the playing experience, fine, but I don't think it would do Civ any good...

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

Earthling7 · April 13, 2000, 08:40

What X-COM did with the choice of TRS and TBS was a good idea. Maybe it would be an idea to something like that in Civ3. Normal play is turn-based and battles could take place either as an enhanced version of the CTP system or an RTS battle. The terrain would then be based on the kind of tile the units are fighting over.

As with X-COM, the game would ask you which mode you prefer as you enter the battle.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

Slingshot · April 14, 2000, 00:35

Many of us have a deep-seated hatred for the mindless fodder of Real-Time Strategy (RTS).

(Heck, that's what keeps us all together!)

But face it. There must be mounting pressure to deliver a RTS version of Civ. Think of Big Huge Games!

So we owe it to those confused and somtimes impressional programmers to once again pave the way to a glorious gaming future.

Let's say we owe it to the world and make this really epic!

Slingshot · April 14, 2000, 11:46

The diplomat has some interesting ideas.

I am scared of a RTS version of Civ as well.

I am more scared of RTS fans making it than I am of TBS fans doing the work.

Hopefully, if Big Huge Games does something RTS-based with Civ, it will honour all the good things we have seen so far.

BOSS Roller · April 15, 2000, 05:42

1) You can't tile a sphere with squares.
2) You can't tile a sphere with hexagons.
3) You CAN tile a sphere with a combination of hexagons and pentagons - it's called a geodesic dome. An example is a soccer ball.

Master Marcus · April 15, 2000, 10:23

I'm among those who think a RTS imprint on CivIII will ruin the civlike empire building trend of the genre. With all the emphasis on RTS, CivIII is maybe the only great TBS ( should be ) fans can hope to play for the years to come.... "They've" decided that " one-hour online RTS play" is the ideal time limit most players can afford. I'm a TBS fan not concerned about this pattern. But I think there's place for both, IF "they" (the creators) want to...

------------------
The art of mastering:"la Maîtrise des caprices du subconscient avant tout".