Remember its Civ3 not Civ2.5

Par4 · June 11, 2000, 14:49

"Moderation is a Virtue"
By Ken Bregott

Are our ideas really going to destroy Civ3, or make it Civ3 and not Civ2.5?

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

June 11, 2000, 15:14

I think the one who wrote that article/column doesn't have the right spirit. I mean, we want to get rid of all these semi-civs like CtP, don't we? The more real innovations civ3 has, the better it will be I guess. Generally...

Ken Bregott · June 11, 2000, 16:22

Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask would be: "Do we want Civilization 3 or Sid Meier's empire-building wargame for hardcore fans that is in a sort of way slightly reminicent of this old game called Civilization?" And as for the Pseudo-Civs, I contend the problem was not too few steps, it was the fact that the steps were the wrong ones and in the wrong directions.

UltraSonix · June 12, 2000, 00:06

Par4, what do you mean by:

quote:

Are our ideas really going to destroy Civ3, or make it Civ3 and not Civ2.5?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Steve Clark · June 12, 2000, 10:10

I agree with Ken. As I have posted periodically in this forum, too many ideas being discussed here are quite unrealistic. It's not that those ideas are ludicrous in themselves, but they don't belong in Civ3. Civilization 1 and 2 works in that it uniquely combines elements of the 4X genre in a simplistic, yet extremely replayable manner (along with creating scenarios). What folks here have been discussing is changing that unique model into something entirely different. Examples include adding a full wargame model (ala Talonsoft), adding a full diplomacy model (ala Imperialism), adding a full city-building model (ala Pharaoh), and so on. It is one thing to talk about such ideas for fun, but building such a impossibly, unrealistic expectation level is stupid, IMO. I have been in the software development industry for years, including game design, so I know how hard it is to take an abstract idea such social engineering (for example) and trying to program it.

My point is that Civ2 works (it has not been voted one of the top games of all time for nothing). It does need improvements, enhancements, fixes, tweaks in the tree, etc. but not a make-over as many folks here are led to believe. I, for one, would play Civ2.5 for years, but I would not play a Civ game that many here unrealistically believe that should be part of that game.

Besides, knowing software development cycles, I suspect that much of the design for Civ3 is complete (remember Sid's message?). It is now a matter of programming and getting the pieces to work together, and to do the artworks (which will take a while).

One more point and then I'll be done. Someone mentioned hexes and how that would radically change the game. I don't think so. We are still talking about a flat, 2D map that would be more realistic cartographically (as oppose to the diamonds). You would have to tweak the movement points on the units, but I believe that that is a minor change.

Par4 · June 12, 2000, 18:51

I don't remember what I meant, my english is bad I think it was is the ideas posted here going to destroy Civ3 or maybe make it a better game. Remember these are just suggestions and Firaxis doesn't have to use them, and probably won't use most of them I doubt anything we do will hurt the game but might help it with testing and prototyping. I think Firaxis will make a good game and use our ideas in moderation but not using any radical ideas will be a bad idea IMHO. I would perfer not to have Civ2 with just some new graphics, AI, few options, a couple of units.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

UltraSonix · June 13, 2000, 02:45

Hear! Hear! I agree with Par4. I know some of the stuff here are too over the top, but some stuff do add realism without sacrifising gameplay (I thought my colonies idea was allright). Civ3 should not be just a glossed over rehash of Civ2.

BTW I just wanted to mention that how come if Sid said that Civ3 was nearly done, there are rumours that Civ3 won't come out to 2002?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Steve Clark · June 13, 2000, 10:02

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-13-2000 02:45 AM
BTW I just wanted to mention that how come if Sid said that Civ3 was nearly done, there are rumours that Civ3 won't come out to 2002?

I would make a guess that the design is essentially complete and that's the easy part (relatively speaking). Coding those ideas and making them work as designed, and doing the wide range of graphics that Civ3 has to have to compete in today's market, all would take 12-18 months of work.

UltraSonix · June 14, 2000, 02:08

Well, I'm hoping the coming 12-18 months isn't wasted all on graphics (Loki, I know'll hate that), but rather on adding extra improvement.

Hummm... I know Firaxis hasn't been one to go public with a beta, but look at all of us hardcore civ fanatics!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

The Joker · June 14, 2000, 06:47

I think that Ken Bregott says it himself: Civ2 is as perfect as games come. Everything Civ2 tryes to accomplish it does well. So why the h*** make a Civ3 if it wont change things dramatically? Wouldn't we just play Civ2 if we want a simple empire game with loads of micromanagement including pointless movement of heads on a small map? If that is what Firaxis is going to make out of Civ3, then why not just call it Civ2 GOLD or something? Cause that is all it will be.

I never played Civ1, so I don't quite know how much change came from that to Civ2. But I do know that I see no need of yet another Civ game with nothing new in it.

I know that many of the ideas posted here (especcially by myself) will change Civ dramatically and include much more management in areas where there used to be almost none. But wouldn't it be more fun to negotiate with different classes in your civ to avoid a civil war that it is to move around heads in a city so you will make sure you get 3 food per square in stead of just 2? There are ways to dramatically reduce the time spent on city micromanagement, like getting rid of the 21 squares system. If Firaxis will do that they can free a lot of gaming to to be spent on new and funnier tasks.

When I played SMAC for the first time I thought that since this was a new game I would propably want to start on a pretty low level, as the game couldn't be just like Civ2. I was wrong. After playing only about 100 turns it was clear to me that I was stronger than all the other factions in the game, and that it would only be a matter of time (unfortunately a pretty long time) before I would win the game. I then tryed on the hardest level and I completed it! The second time I played SMAC I could complete it on the hardest level. It was that much like Civ2.

I would like Civ3 to give way to completely new strategies, and therefor make the game different enough from the old games to actually make it feel like playing a new game. And this will include more than changing the Fortify command to Hold.

CornMaster · June 14, 2000, 13:11

I also think that most of these ideas are unrealistic and could hurt Civ 3 but if we don't bring them up, they can't be refined by other members of the forums.

I say keep the ideas coming but don't be too upset if all of them aren't in the game.

I also think that other Civ-like games are bad/wrong. I tried playing Alpha-Centauri but I hated it and I tried CTP but didn't like that either. I've also played Test of Time and found the animated units and terrain a little annoying. I'd prefer simple units, simple interface, and an excellent AI. If it's hard to play or make scenarios for I probably won't bother and stick to Civ 2 Gold. (I love making scenarios. I'm currently making a Star Trek one. It's my third try but I think this one has what it needs to be good.)
[This message has been edited by CornMaster (edited June 14, 2000).]

UltraSonix · June 15, 2000, 00:11

This goes back to what I was saying in another thread - if Firaxis can't make the AI good enough in Civ3, then a means must be provided so that it can be improved by the end user. That means AI scripts/open source AI.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

MidKnight Lament · June 15, 2000, 03:59

quote:

Originally posted by The Joker on 06-14-2000 06:47 AM
I never played Civ1...

Go download it somewhere if you get time. Everybody here should have at least had half a look at it.

Civ I was every bit as much of a classic as Civ II was. Helps you appreciate what we've got now, too.

- MKL

UltraSonix · June 16, 2000, 18:34

Everyone above keeps saying that Civ2 is the greatest game ever, etc. It is the greatest game ever, but it still has areas that can be vastly improved, without spoiling the basic civ-style gameplay. For example, diplomacy must be greatly improved, even from SMAC standards. Trade should be made relevant, and hence the economics of the civs should ties in with each other (eg if one's civ's growing money on trees then the other civs would get a flow-on effect and also prosper). So as you can see I think there are still areas for improvement, so guys, don't give up with your ideas yet!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...