Thread Tools
Old April 22, 2000, 23:25   #1
DanM
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 37
Experiencing each time period(and making it last longer)
One thing I would like to see addressed in Civ3 is the opportunity to REALLY experience each period of time that my civilization happens to be in.For example,if I am currently in the medieval age,I build things appropriate(and necessary)to that time period such as Castles for defence.Each age would last longer to get a better feel for the time period,and things like different background music for each period could be used to enhance the feeling of "being there".
As much as I love the other civs,I found that an age could pass without me really even spending any time there because I quickly aquire new advances through research.Maybe each age could have certain research advances associated with it and you could not advance to the next age without completing all advances within.
DanM is offline  
Old April 23, 2000, 01:37   #2
Slingshot
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 436
I agree DanM.

In fact, I have been lobbying along similar lines.

You could add some comments in the CTP2 section, called the "Shifting Sands of Time."
Slingshot is offline  
Old April 23, 2000, 16:22   #3
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
I agree. I want to enjoy each time period more, especially Ancient times.
Here are my thoughts. This might be a little radical but how about making each turn equal one year through the entire game. I know that would make the game over 6000 turns long but hear me out.

The player would be able to fully experience each period of History as if it were a game within a game. You would experience a lot more events like wars, revolutions, social changes, new discoveries, etc for each time period. When you reached the techs and fulfilled the prerequesites to advance to the next age, you could save the game, take a rest from the game for a while, and when you felt up to it, take the game up again where you left off, and play the next age as a game by itself. You might spend days maybe weeks playing just one period of History. When you reached the end, the replay would be that much more satisfying as you would recall the ups and downs of your civ throughout history. For example, maybe your civ was mighty during the Bronze Age because of the Legion but lost its influence during the Middle Ages because of the Plague, and regained its prestige during the Industrial Revolution because of a world war that decimated your rivals.
I think this would provide a much more fulfilling experience of leading your civ to greatness.
The player that does not want to play the game for that much time should be able to play a "quick" mode that would go through History a lot faster (in a lot less turns).
Also, since each period would be like a game within a game, I suggest that a player be able choose any Period and play just that Period alone. In this mode, the game would just be that one period. There should be rewards and victory conditions for the player that just plays one Period. How great can you make your civ in that limited amount of time? If your civ does not last all of History, you should still get a high score based on your accomplishments. (even if your civ gets conquered, if you accomplished a lot like building great Wonders, you should still get a high score, and thus still "win"). Victory should be based on your accomplishments. After all, civs did not last all of History and yet a still viewed as Great Civilizations! (ie: Egypt, Rome, Babylonians)


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 23, 2000).]
The diplomat is offline  
Old April 23, 2000, 18:02   #4
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
This proposal of the Diplomat is exactly what I hope CivIII will be, apart from making the game a REAL Challenge, which will require better AI and many other factors. I am sorry the EC3list is made and sent to Firaxis already (as far as I know) because this excellent proposal certainly deserved to be included.

Hurray for our own Diplomat!!
By the way, an other great proposal of this same genius was the recruitment system, which unfortunately didn't make it to the essential list. For shame!!
We should recognise brilliance when it is living among us, not afterwards when it is dead and gone! Maybe we will never get a second chance....
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old April 23, 2000, 19:20   #5
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
I am very very flattered, thank you S Kroeze!




------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
The diplomat is offline  
Old April 24, 2000, 02:33   #6
DanM
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 37
If I could agree with the diplomat more than 100%,I would.Excellent suggestions and I am extremely pleased to see more people are thinking along the same lines as me(and doing it better)
DanM is offline  
Old April 25, 2000, 10:33   #7
Otso Vuorio
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hämeenlina,Häme,Finland
Posts: 27
It really irritated me in Civ2, when the Medieval time passed through after 20 minutes.
The diplomat's ideas of different time periods sounds very interresting and I hope this topic gets more popularity

Otso Vuorio is offline  
Old April 25, 2000, 11:06   #8
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I agree that the game should have a mode in which there were far more turns. I can actually agree with most of the diplomats suggestions, apart from the fact that it seems that he thinks that each age should be like missions in Starcraft or C&C. I strongly disagree on this. The thing that makes Civ a great game is, that you feel the flow of your civilization as you lead it through history. There shouldn't be some huge pause in the game for each age, nor should the change between the ages be very sudden, like the suggestion about having some discoveries not being available untill the next age is reached. I think that all advances should be availible when you have the prerequisite advances.

An age should be defined by one or some advances, so when you discover them you reach this age. Cities should look different for each age, but I would like this change to be gradual, so you in 1800 have cities that are part rennaissance (or some other age if more ages are introduced) and part industrial.

An age should also have music, and possibly interface just for that. The interface difference, however, should only be graphical, like the difference between the races in Starcraft.
The Joker is offline  
Old April 25, 2000, 11:12   #9
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
I see a flaw in this otherwise good idea. If the purpose of the game is to win (what else should it be? ), then the key is to get ahead of your opponents. The reason the Medieval period can be so short is that, at least in Civ2, you are now discovering advances every 2-4 turns, thus racing up the tree to superior military units or AC. The same can be said for the Ancient period, which I try to get through as quickly as possible. Why prolong a time period when it can only hold you back from winning? I think the various scenarios that are specific to a time period can really capture the feel much better than a 4000bc game.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old April 25, 2000, 11:24   #10
DirkZelwis
Chieftain
 
DirkZelwis's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Berlin, Germany, Europa
Posts: 41
Hello!

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark on 04-25-2000 11:12 AM
...The reason the Medieval period can be so short is that, at least in Civ2, you are now discovering advances every 2-4 turns, ...
.

That's something I like about Civ2. It shows what christianity and the Dark Ages because of it *really* did to humanity. We could well be on ... well, maybe not AC, but Mars?
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers."

DirkZelwis is offline  
Old April 25, 2000, 14:48   #11
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
The Joker: I don't want each time period to be like a mission in C&C. Rest assured!
When you reach the techs of the next Age, and meet the prerequesites to advance, your civ would advance to the next Age. The length of an Age would not be fixed. It would depend on how fast your civ advanced through the techs and building the city improvements etc. You would get a message, the buildings would change look, music would change, but the transition would be smooth. The map, your empire, your relations with other civs, etc... would stay the same from one Age to the next. The game would NOT interrupt and change things around with new orders, like mission based games usually do.

I am thinking that the Ages would be a cool way to indentify a civ's evolution. Knowing that your civ has reached the Rennaissance, for example, would give the player an understanding of how much progress has been made. Also, say your civ is a Middle Age civ and you meet another civ that has reached the early Industrial Age, you would have an easy way to compare civs and relate to the other civ.

The game would be smooth just like in civ2. Same map and everything throughout the entire game. The different Ages serve as a way to see your civ's progress and compare other civs to yours.
I said that a player would save the game when his/her civ reaches the next Age because that seemed to be the best time to save. I figure that no player would try to play 6000 turns straight through. When a civ reaches the next age, it just seems to be the logical time to save a game and take a break, but you don't have to.

I hope I have addressed your concerns and I am glad that you posted your comments.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
The diplomat is offline  
Old April 25, 2000, 21:28   #12
DanM
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 37

Slowing down an age will slow down everyones advancement.It doesn't mean you are still not advancing faster than the others.
Why does there have to be such a rush to get to the future?Ya we all want the next best advance,but why not savor the time period you happen to be in?The game would play out much more like an epic journey,and reaching the next advance would feel much more like a great accomplishment, rather than just another quick stepping-stone to gunpowder or rocketry or whatever.
A smooth transition between ages is obviously the choice for a game like Civ(I don't care much for scenario games anyways)
[This message has been edited by DanM (edited April 25, 2000).]
DanM is offline  
Old April 26, 2000, 00:29   #13
BeeBee
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 40
People, tell me,

where can I find and read the EC3-list??

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé
BeeBee is offline  
Old April 26, 2000, 10:30   #14
BeeBee
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 40
True,
somehow you should have the feeling to be in a certain age.
I rarely "experienced" making pikemen as playing in a medieval age, because three turns further your dragoons were invented.
Only ancient times used to last somewhat longer, but even then...

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé
BeeBee is offline  
Old April 26, 2000, 11:16   #15
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
Diplomat:

Í think we agree now, although I think you would want to save more often than each changing age if the game lasts 6000+ turns. Especcially if the internal struggle and advanced diplomacy that we both want in the game is incorporated...

When we are at it, how many ages should be in the game?

I think that if the game lasted longer there could be more turns. How about having these ages: (the dates are all just exambles of when the change happended in history)

Preancient (stoneage, whatever) 4000-500BC

Ancient 500BC-450AD

Medieval 450-1400AD

Rennaissance 1400-1600AD

Baroque or something else between rennaissance and industrial 1600-1800AD

Industrial 1800-1920AD

Modern 1920-1980/1990

Postmodern 1980/1990-2020 or so (not at all sure about this)

Genetic/Dream society/whatever 2020-2100 (??)

Space age untill the game ends sometime around 2200 - this is, if any, a realistic date for the launch to AC.


There could be more ages. I am aware that there are far more ages in modern times compared to ancient, but as research is far faster now this is realistic.

I think that the game might become boring with loads of turns around 3500BC when you have little or no contact with other civs and very few cities, units and other things to play with. There should therefor be someway of just accellerating time if you have nothing to do - there should be a button to press that would make the game simply move forward untill something happened. The game would then be stopped so you could do whatever you wanted to do.
The Joker is offline  
Old April 26, 2000, 19:10   #16
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
quote:


I wouldn't mind having the option to have up to 32 civs, provided that it doesn't overwhelm the AI and make the game crash. This is something to consider; CTP, with its animations and multilayered maps, and extra civs was crash-o-matic city! The creators should research the stability of the build with all those extra civs to run.
I have a suggestion with regards to minor civs. By the time civilization appeared, humans had already spread all over the earth. Civilizations geberally expanded into areas already inhabited by other people, so increase the density of goody huts, and make them all inhabited. Upon advancing onto a populated hut, there would be several possible outcomes: (1)The natives surrender, and (a)found a city on the spot, (b)you ask them to move, and they do so peacefully, or (c)you ask them to move and they revolt. (2)The natives fight back, and (a)they lose and acquiesce to your commands, or (b) they win and become barbarians. (3)The natives ask for a bribe to join your tribe, if you don't pay they fight. (4)If slavery is incorporated into the game, you may attempt to enslave the natives, whereupon they may or may not fight. (5)The natives escape, and settle elsewhere or come back as barbarians.
Some goody huts would include money, advances, and etc. in addition to population. The tech level of the goody huts would increase according to the tech levels of any nearby civ. If there aren't any nearby civs, then the tech level is either basic, or about the level of the lowest civ on the map. Goody huts could have city improvements appropriate for their tech level, thereby acting like minor civs. You could even let them have names, and give them a chance to revolt until they have been assimilated after x number of turns.



quote:


I do warmly support the idea of Strangelove to have 'natives' all over the world, not necessarily enthusiastic to become 'civilized'.
It would result in the creation of a rural population, as advocated by Doberman, and his CIVilians. In my opinion an even better idea would be to make most of those 'natives' nomadic pastoralists/hunter-gatherers. Roaming about they could easily come into conflict with sedentary civilizations. It would make expansion in the beginning of the game less obvious, resulting in a more exciting start of Civilization. It would also help to counteract ICS and be more realistic too.



Dear Joker,

Did you consider this idea of Stangelove? Combined with my 'Domestic Politics' it could result in a game interesting from the start, even in 3500BC.
Expansion would become quite difficult, when the dangers of agressive nomads or disintegration of empire would be a reality. Nor should we ever forget peasant revolts or religious conflicts!

As names for the first and second period I would suggest Ancient(~4000-~800BC) and Classical(~800BC-~200AD). In China some sort of medieval period started with the end of Han in 220AD.
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old April 27, 2000, 11:12   #17
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
Hi S.

That sounds great! I am opposed to having the minor nations in the beginning of the game be confined to goody huts. They should move around by themselves, sometimes even attack the original civs. I really dont like having minor and major nations as two distinct types, as I would much rather have civs in all "shapes and sizes". But if having minor nations is the only thing that Firaxis will include then its fine with me.

My comment on the game being boring in the beginning was not made because I didn't think the game should have lots of more turns. It was more a statement, that if far more turns are included there must be something to do in these turns. And I think your suggestions is just what we need.
The Joker is offline  
Old April 27, 2000, 13:40   #18
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
I think that all the civs should start on an equal footing. As the game progresses, some civs would emerge as major civilizations whereas others would become "minor civs". Later in the game, a minor civ might rise to become a major civ whereas a major civ might fall and become a "minor" civ. This would implement the "rise and fall of empires" concept nicely.
I would hope that "minor" and "major" civs would not be fixed.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 27, 2000).]
The diplomat is offline  
Old April 27, 2000, 19:49   #19
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
I may be wrong, so correct me if I am, but I was under the impression that the words "minor civs" were just being used to describe peoples inhabiting the earth before your first settler arrives (so that we don't start with an unrealistic uninhabited map. I'm not sure that we've been told much beyond that.

We can assume that most of these will be tribal or nomadic of nature. Also I think we were told that we'd have some early interaction with them. I don't know that they're there for the same reason that the normal civs are though. Probably much like the Native Americans were in Colonization; a force, but not there to take over the world.

Like I said though, I could be wrong, so feel free to shoot me down in flames

- MKL
MidKnight Lament is offline  
Old April 29, 2000, 13:36   #20
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
I like the 'each period of history' idea.
But we still have to remember that these periods have not been exactly the same in all cultures. Some people lived in the stone age only a few years ago. I have a question.
Should these periods of time be fixed or should they depend on your own technological progress or should they simple depend on 'first to discover xxx tech' ? I still like the idea. Maybe if u manage to get to the next period of time before it's time u get a bonus for every turn that is left (of the old period of time).
Stuff2 is offline  
Old April 29, 2000, 22:12   #21
DanM
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 37
For the sake of realism,I think it would be best that each player would experience each age seperate from other players.
The thing about having time periods in history last much longer is that for the most part,all players in the game will experience the same time period at the same time,give or take a few advances during that time period.I think that certain rules should apply that would govern all or some empires during that period,such as the influence of the church on some cultures during the Dark Ages.Or,if you are playing the Mongols,you can't build knights during the Middle Ages,but may have faster moving horseback units etc.
DanM is offline  
Old April 30, 2000, 02:52   #22
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
The 'Ages' that we are talking about were not exactly linked to tech but more to human thought. Maybe these Ages could be linked to the psych stream of the 'tech' tree.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
Biddles is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:19.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team