Civ 3: New Game . New Rules & New Feelings?

[Az]

civ 3 will come out . will it be a new game , with new features , and new meanings in Global Conflict or will it be just a much better version of Civ2 ?

lets face it , for all it's great features , Civ2 was infact a very nice version of Civ1 . shields , trade and food , caravans and the spaceship . it's all the same .

will civ3 include more goverments or will it take us to a new level of civ building , contoling polotics , economy and faith and ensuring the possiblity of rising up and establishing a civ even if your army is gone and all you're left with is faith , and ppl loyal to you , the spirit of the civ ?

will the poor AI force the Diety players to conjure (thats a TA: kingdoms word , right ?)
obstacles just to challenge thenselves or will the AI prove a real trouble even for the Civ hardened player ?


all these are questions to which I guess we , the gamers , have the full right to know the answers .

Right ?

Dalgetti


------------------
Prepare to Land !

[yin26]

These are all very good questions. At this point you'd likely have to buy the Firaxis team a very expensive lunch to get them answered.

[UltraSonix]

quote: lets face it , for all it's great features , Civ2 was infact a very nice version of Civ1 . shields , trade and food , caravans and the spaceship . it's all the same .

I don't get why everyone gets really buggered about civ 2.5. I think civ2 is just about as good a game as can be made - it'll be the minor tweaks (well, AI's not that minor...) in Civ3 that'll make the game really good. Doesn't really matter if it's civ2.5

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

[Adm.Naismith]

UltraSonix, let's try to put things in another perspective: A new game about developing a nation on a world wide scenario is coming.

What game model, graphic, AI power and features do you think are needed to make it worth good money and learning effort, instead of simply continue to play with CIV 2, SMAC or CTP?

The question is not more complex than that, IMHO, because any player has in fact different taste of "Civ like" game, call it CTP II, CIV 3 or any name you like.

The only real reason to share our expectation in a public place is not to "fight" if you are right and I'm wrong, but to force Firaxis to know and listen about a somewhat representative part of their customers.

Of course Firaxis know about common game players that don't care to spend time to make suggestions about their next product.

Lot of people prefer to eat ready meal and fast food. Let simply know to Firaxis that some of us have greater (sometime unrealistic) expectation.

Can this make any harm to the incoming game?
Or at least, more harm than good?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited July 10, 2000).]

[Grier]

Its very important for civ3 not to be civ2.5, for a start CTP was civ2.5 already and ctpII will probably be somewhere between 2.75 and 3. In fact considering CTP civ3 probably needs to be at least civ3.5 (or more preferably civ4) if it is to make any impact on the civ market.

NOTE: the above does not include SMAC, which rates at about civ2.5 and so pushes the civ3 boat out even further.

[Steve Clark]

You know I have to add my .01

I think it's becoming obvious that we have three schools of thought: Civ2.5, Civ2.75 and Civ3. Each proponent has its own bias and they, to some extent, causes conflicts with other adherents. Please keep in my kind that it's ok to disagree and our opinions are really not going to make much a difference in the final product.

As far as the revolutionary/evolutionary debate, for those that insist on Civ3 being a revolutionary game is really off-base, IMO. You have to keep in mind that the game will be called, 'Civilization III'. What some of you are asking for is a game called, 'Society I' or 'Human Culture I' or something like that. Those games would be interesting but they would not be Civilization III would it?

Some revolutionary ideas would be beneficial to Civ3. Didn't Civ2 have some revolutionary ideas as compared to Civ1? My point is that Civ3 must continue on with the basic civilization model, else it would not be deserved to be called Civ3.

In response the post above about CtP being 2.5 and such, I disagree completely. CtP, ToT and to some extent, SMAC, were just 'me-to' games trying to cash in on the Civ name, adding their own rancid flavor. Those games are not even worth mentioning in the same breath as Civ1 and Civ2.
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited July 10, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

Yeah, you're right. I'll disagree with you.

- MKL

[TheLimey]

Steven: You've definitely not seen what CtP1 is now... and what CtP2 may become.

As always, quality is subjective... but certainly civ1, and to a lesser extent civ2 is woefully inadequate in many areas now.

CtP was definitely an advance from an engine standpoint. Its downfall was an aweful beta test and play balance effort, and a lack of 'civ feeling'.

The interface has been improved somewhat comparitively to its first release, though it still isn't as clean as Civ2's for example. In many ways however, it is miles ahead of it too; a sortable, scrollable, multi-selectable city screen, and pretty cool loading and saving city queues.

Combat was ridiculous under the old civ model. Stacking combat makes sense (but only when balance has been worked out.) The game designers made serious mistakes when they allowed many ancient units stacked together to be able to kill a modern airborne unit. This was and is fixable through the alteration of the unit stats though... and has been done.

The special units in CtP are excellent and innovative; the 'Corporate Branch' is the prime example, it allows for economic warfare... something that exists and deserves a place in a civ game, but wasn't incorporated until now.

All in all... much of CtP did get 'fixed' by modmakers... but the result is a game 'more civ than Civ'.

If you've not played it recently, with the latest mods, then you've not played CtP. If you've not played it... then you've got no basis for comparison.

I think we shall see much of CtP in Civ3... especially the wide customizability, and stacking combat, and perhaps more such as a Trade screen and so on.

[Steve Clark]

Limey, thanks for your input. I did participate in the CtP forum a while back and talk about opposing camps! You either learn to love it or you just hate it. I would have to admit a personal bias in that I hate anything to do with scifi and fanstasy, and that's where those games seem to be placed. So pardon my harsh comparisons.

The improvements you mentioned: stacked combat, trading and customizability will not come about because of CtP (a totally separate product developed by non-Firaxis/non-Micropose folks). Sid and his gang will be adding those features to Civ3 simply because they will (and have to) improve on many of the weaknesses of Civ2. I believe Firaxis still holds the rights to the original Civ1/Civ2/SMAC coding and unlike others who had to build a civ-like game from scratch, they can (and will) build upon the existing coding structures.

[TheLimey]

Steve: I agree that you 'loose something' when you venture into sci-fi territory in 'civ'. Its not quite authentic anymore. There were definitely some very interesting future concepts in CtP though; Sea Cities and 'Ectopia, Technocracy, Corporate Republic and Virtual Democracy'. Its interesting to imagine what will become of Earth; even if we did send off a spaceship to Alpha Centuri or even build colonies somewhat closer, then life would still continue on Earth (for billions of years hopefully.)

You cannot whatever you say... take away from the fact that stacked combat and trade screens were innovations of CtP, even if they are essential. They weren't essential enough to be thought of, and included in SMAC, by Firaxis. So surely you must recognize these as true innovations in the 'civ field' by Activision. Firaxis aren't blind, and have seen CtP... and nothing stops them from copying interesting concepts, as long as they don't infringe on intellectual property.

Activision acquired rights to the 'Civilization' title to make one game, and future games will just be 'Call to Power'. Names don't ultimately make the game, however, developers and the code that they produce... do.

I think that the existing code structure bit is irrelevant now; if anything there will be much more new code in Civ3, than in CtP2.

[Quartz Dragon]

Civ II was an upgrade to Civ I as X-Com II was to X-Com I. What I would like to see in Civ III is an evolutionary leap like the one seen in X-Com III. An essintuly different and more powerfull engine that retains the feel of Civs I & II.

The major concept that I liked in CtP was the underwater tunnels, something that to a limeted extent is possible now (tunnel under the English Channel). This greatly speeded up troop deployments. I was actualy disapointed that SMAC didn't have them (although I can understand that for play balance they couldn't have them). If Firaxis makes railroads that still require movement points then tunnels should be availible.

[TheLimey]

Though its a little offtopic... X-com 2 was a disgrace that should never have been attempted by Microprose. Kinda like Aliens3

X-Com 1 was excellent, and is still one of the best tactical level games available.

X-Com Apocalypse (X-Com 3) was a real extention of the game, and the mixed turn-based/real time combat was excellent... the battles and the management were all very cool. The only problems that I could see were that the game was too short, and that it lacked the same dark atmosphere as X-Com 1

[Imran Siddiqui]

Limey, WHAT?! Corporate Branch was a good thing?! My first topic on Apolyton (in Novemeber of 1998) was "Stupid Units" in the CTP forums. I'm guessing you know what that was about. Corporate Branch is included.

I'm not a fan of CTP like stacking either. 9 in a stack is WAY too big. I'd rather prefer stacks of 2 (an air unit and a land unit), and have coordinated attacks - different squares attack one square; a type of simultaneous turns type thing. Stacks made me lose interest.

I also hated the lack of a city screen in CTP. SMAC's interface I enjoyed much more.

SMAC was great though. Kept the good Civ things while adding borders, amazing diplomacy options, Social Engineering, and ideologies. It was Civ 2.75! All Civ needs to improve on the already excellent SMAC model, not try to follow the radical agenda of the CtP designers.

[Par4]

i'm back, and I'm a king and I now respect the simplicity of things. Civ2.5 Civ3 should not be but it should not be insanely complicated as I had tried to make it before

I would want some new economics maybe a couple more things you have to mine or produce, a lot of the things from the old corporations thread like manufactured goods etc and classes of people. Stacks of only the same type of units so armies airforces and navys cant be mixed to add a little realism. Good AI that can adapt but isn't un defeatable. Good graphics and everything else that should go with a new game.

Anyway I'm back and in a new light you'll hear more about what I want from civ3 later.

Minor improvements these will not be but it will not be a new game.

------------------
King Par4 and the Secret Service


fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited July 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited July 10, 2000).]

[TheLimey]

Imran> I did a little search through the archives and found an interesting little snippet...

You never bought CtP. All of your opinions were based on other peoples opinions or reviews. There are no subsequent mentions of you trying it after the fact either. Not after a patch. Not with a mod. All second hand knowledge and supposition.

How do explain your (superior) understanding of a subject that many people have had whilst you have not?

Secondly... Restate what is wrong with unconventional warfare, and why it should not exist in 'civ' or the way it could be improved. How is economic warfare not an excellent and innovative idea?

Also... while you're at it, explain how stacks made you loose interest. Whats not to like about combined arms warfare... central in modern warfare doctrin and as old as a medieval siege.

Why should just two units attack at once... let me guess... so they can decimate all units stacked in the target square? Or that the attacker should be decimated by all the defending units? Or because people cannot cope with more than 'one-attacker-per-square'.

One thing that I believe will be almost certain to happen in Civ3 are multi-unit stacks, ala CtP. Firaxis has stated as much... when they were talking about the General unit. So I guess they don't agree with you either.

You are correct about the city screen... CtP did suffer for its lack. The Cities screen however, is excellent, when its sorting features are put to use. Its been mentioned that the city screen is in for CtP2.

I apologize if I sound curt... but flaming something that you've no good experience of is just poor form.
[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited July 10, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

Most special units in CtP are stupid. The reason simply being they are too unbalancing. For example, the corporate branch. While economic warfare is an interesting idea, establishing a branch in another country was not possible until very recently. None of the old companies (The Hudson Bay Company, The Dutch East Indies Company, etc.) were established to trade with colonies and had no branch in other countries.

With that aside, I say we should go with Civ 3 instead of Civ2.5. CtP bores me (it's interface is godawful). SMAC is just slightly better. Look, I want to be in control of a civilisation, not a bunch of bases or cities.

[Steve Clark]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 07-10-2000 10:17 PM I want to be in control of a civilisation, not a bunch of bases or cities.

I think Urban hits upon a key difference in how civers approach this game. I remember a thread a while back in one of the forums that talks about a role-playing approach to the Civ games. That is where I think some of the differences in opinions regarding Civ3 come from. Some, esp. those espousing in-depth models, want to really feel like they are the emperor of a civilization. While others, like myself, only see the attributes (numbers) of cities, units, improvements, wonders, terrains, etc. The fun is then in coming up with the many different ways those numbers can interact. That is not to say that completing a wonder or clobbering an enemy are not cool (they are!), but the point is that there are those that view Civ strictly as a tactics-based strategy game with no sense of 'role playing'.

[TheLimey]

Game balance is completely balancable within CtP. You can either remove the unit that offends, or increase the cost of their special effect, or their build cost, or the percentage chance of their success or even the percentage of the quantity of resource that they take if thats appropriate.

Complaints about game balance, are moot... since you can use a text editor and fix this... yourself...

In fact, in CtP you can go futher, and change the desire of the AI to use unconventional attacks, if you think it is not using them enough, or is using them too much. You can also change the build priority numerically in relationtion to all other build priorities. That doesn't even have to be static, and can change, for example if the AI is being invaded, to more defensive measures.

If you're talking about boredom about a collection of cities... I guess you can say the same thing about Civ x. I'm still not bored of the collection of cities idea, since I see them as a greater whole, especially when considering the intricacies of governments...

SMAC was a special case, in that it had factions. It's a linear design, that has certain attributes and behaviours set to particular factions. While you can change certain attributes, much stays the same and is not editable.

Do you think that Civ3 will use factions? Or will it go back to a conventional government/city=civ approach?

[Steve Clark]

I know we talked about this before but the idea of factions limiting the user on the playing the game is a very bad idea. It's one thing to do so in a scenario (where it is better implemented) but don't tell me that I can't research a tech or build a wonder because of my faction. If I can come up with various strategies that gives me a commanding tech lead and become supreme for 6000 years and WIN the game, that's all that matters. Come on, it's an abstract strategy game not a historical simulation. If you want simulation, build a scenario but don't put me in a 'role' that limits my strategic planning.

[TheLimey]

My point exactly Steve...

CtP is pretty number heavy, which can be a good thing and a bad thing. For me, I like to see the numbers, so that I can tweak and balance. This gives me a feeling of success, from seeing my efforts pay off in tangible success. I feel a little like the architect imagining the building, from a plan and its associated numbers etc.

However, this isn't the one true way(TM), indeed I don't believe such a thing exists.

In the discussion process for CtP2, when the designers asked what we wanted changed, in the city and agregate city view... one of the high priorities was adding graphical colour to the whole thing, since numbers alone can be very dry.

There is however a danger in using too much of any approach; in my (I guess) dozenth Civ1 game... I founded a city near a mixture of montains and plains on a river, and this very quickly became my 'warfactory' city. There gets a point when you can't see individual numbers of shields... and have to refer to the numerical display on the cities screen. This wasn't a huge flaw... it just wasn't the ideal solution; personally at the point the shields etc. were no longer decernable, I would have displayed the quantity in smalish white text over the shields, so you know in an instant what you are dealing with. Alternatively, you could have had 'poker chip' shields where slightly different shields have different values (1, 10, 100 etc.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: You never bought CtP. All of your opinions were based on other peoples opinions or reviews. There are no subsequent mentions of you trying it after the fact either. Not after a patch. Not with a mod. All second hand knowledge and supposition.

Yeah, I borrowed it from a friend for a month, and DLed all the mods, etc. (I can just hear it now, "You have to play CtP for MORE than a month! You haven't played it at all...". I played it and I hated it. Yes, I never bought it. I never pay for rubbish (or games I can get for free ).

Needless to say, I want an apology and if you don't, I'll continue to assume that you are the punk that you seem to be.

quote: Secondly... Restate what is wrong with unconventional warfare, and why it should not exist in 'civ' or the way it could be improved. How is economic warfare not an excellent and innovative idea?

UR's post was sufficent enough.

quote: Also... while you're at it, explain how stacks made you loose interest. Whats not to like about combined arms warfare... central in modern warfare doctrin and as old as a medieval siege.

I was never against COMBINED WARFARE. Perhaps you should work on your reading skills, eh? I'm against stacks! I'm for simultaneous turns, but I don't want HUGE stacks where the defender can't ever really tell what is in it! It can see the stack and how many, but how many what? I'd rather know the units in front of me as a defender (which has also been tradition.. if an attack parks it in front of your city, you know what he has). Stacks, I don't like them at all, and if Sid and Co. do create stacks, I wish them to be at MOST 3 to a stack.
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited July 11, 2000).]

[TheLimey]

If you had borrowed the game, and found it to be that poor, then you'd have made sure to speak up on Apolyton, because thats exactly what you do, Imran.

So... just to do a little checking... I looked around Apolyton... for the post containing your name and the root word 'borrow', 'len' (lend lent etc.) and tr (tried) and there is no such post.

So... no... you'll get no apology... because I believe that you are being economical with the truth. In a Bill Clinton kind of way.

I'd be careful calling me a punk by the way... since... you ignorant little student... you've got no basis to do so.

Regarding unconventional units... I answered UR's post... but you haven't responded...

And regarding stacks... you are splitting more hairs than the president supposedly did with his definition of the word 'is'.

Say four stacks of two (8 if you can't do the math) versus a stack of nine from a single square.

I know lots of people with the mental ability to cope with stacks of these size.
If its defense you're worried about... then its a doddle to create a SLIC function to identify a stack that you point to... Listing all pertinent stack information.
Its a good assumption though, that if a stack is there, then its an assault stack containing mixed troops, and possibly bombarders or active defenders.

I, and many CtP multiplayers have no problem with stacks... and it improves combined forces combat immeasurably.

[Par4]

Comparing Imran to willy, LOL You're a funny guy Limey

Anyway I like CTP's units, well wanted too. CTP2 will fix all the problems etc and I'll buy it and be happy. Be happy people stop getting so pissed off at each other.

If you want combined arms warfare, I'm not sure if this is in it I haven't played in sooo sooo sooo sooo long just give bonuses. Say as stack has 3 pikemen, then all Cavalry attacks should be 1/2 damage or cavalry take 2x damage or something. Or archers should get a big bonus if fighting infantry. Specializing units vs something is what combined arms is all about and I'm NOT sure if there is bonuses like these in CTP but if they are that was very smart of the team to put it in. A little strategic depth for once.

and how do I get the freaking smilies to work in my sig the first time I post it, I've taken them out for now but they don't work!!!

HelP!!!!

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[yin26]

Ding! Ding! Gentlemen, to your corners!

Honestly, let's not sling any mud at each other. If you guys really want to tear into each other, could you e-mail it? Or use the off-topic/CtP forum since this is really now an old/CtP issue?

Thanks guys...and back to our regularly scheduled Civ3 discussions.

[Tiberius]

I'd like to see a Civ3 which is an improved Civ2 and not an entirely new game. Improvements? Yes, a lot: diplomacy, AI, trade, borders, micromanagement, etc.
New ideas? Yes, some (rise and fall of empires, small nations, energy, social engineering, maybe religion), just be sure to keep a right game balance.
You can call it Civ 2.5, or 2.75 or 3, I don't care. Just be sure to keep the good things, the fun and the feeling of Civ1 and 2.

I know there are some guys who like CTP, but a lot of them don't (me neither) so I guess it's not a good idea to combine it in any way with Civ3. CTP is good for comparison but please, let Civ3 to be Civ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey Yin, I'm just saying CtP (Crap to Play) sucks, and Limey, not having any arguement is calling me a liar.

quote: If you had borrowed the game, and found it to be that poor, then you'd have made sure to speak up on Apolyton, because thats exactly what you do, Imran.

Oh, of course. You so know what I do. You live in the next room, keeping tabs. Do you know how long it has been since I've posted on another forum except the Off-Topic? About a year!!! By that time I played it, everyone knew Crap to Play (CtP) sucked, so I didn't say anything (not that I went to the CtP forums, anyway).

Stacks suck. I hated how they played out. You always get wierd results with stacks. I'm sorry, but fighters getting beat by pikemen isn't normal in the world. I blame stack combat! And stacks aren't that realistic! You try to fit 9 armies in New York City and see how well that works!

Uncoventional units... CtP's were DUMB! Corporate Branch . So, now, let me get this straight. You are saying nations use their corporations to gain the upper hand on other nations by *snicker* stifling them with paperwork?! LOL! ROTFLOL!

Moronic, Moronic, Moronic.... the 3 adjectives that describe CtP the best.

[TheLimey]

It was convienient for you to have 'borrowed' this game, so that you could speak of your experiences... especially given your consistant knocking of this game. If you knew it was crap, then why did you go to the trouble of installing such a 'crap and buggy' game? I don't buy it... and am still suggesting that you are not being truthful here...

I have plenty of arguements of why CtP is the best thing in Civ now... but thats a comparitive opinion thing.

Are you asking about fitting 9 armies into NYC in real life? or in NYC in Civ2?

Of course, the city is more than the city... it encompasses the environs. As it always has in Civ & Civ2. I don't see why 9 armies shouldn't be able to fit in NYC. Do you have the definitive answer to how many individual figures there are in a unit, or for that matter, how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

Stack results are more than releastic now... but you wouldn't know that because you never played it... except in your delusions maybe. Fighters can bombard now (at lower attack strength than a bomber however,) so they can no longer be beaten by pikemen. If there was regular combat however, then the fighters would still win because of their superior armour and firepower stats. A development in a patch, that you have no direct experience of.

You are totally misunderstanding Corporate Branch... its purpose is to demonstrate a way to franchise a companies operation into another country. The halting production that you are talking about is the lawyer filing an injunction in a city. Much like a world trade dispute happens at the WTO now. All of the special effects happens in a general and abstracted way... as many things in 'civ'. Yes you have to imagine something... but then you have to imagine many things in Civ and always have. Your capacity for imagining things not in your narrow mindset does seem so limited though.

Moronic Moronic Moronic would describe your mindset far better than CtP.

PS. Yin... I would be in favour of moving this to another thread to a more appropriate forum... though I'm not going to conceed the last word if it remains here, especially since Imran seems intent on unfounded slander.
[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited July 12, 2000).]

[Par4]

Shut up jeez! Didn't you hear Yin, shut up let's talk about Civ3.

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited July 12, 2000).]

[yin26]

Listen guys, I don't want to get in the middle of your debate with each other, but as moderator I kind of have to when the discussion goes off topic and gets personal like this. So please no more last words regarding this issue on the Civ3 forum. It doesn't belong here. You guys are more than welcome to start a thread in off-topic, present your case, and see what other people think...or just go at each other there and ignore what other people think.

Anyway, I hope that ends this 'cause I haven't had to do any serious moderating here on the Civ3 forum in months!

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 07-09-2000 10:04 PM These are all very good questions. At this point you'd likely have to buy the Firaxis team a very expensive lunch to get them answered.

oh , now with my new job , I will be also able to afford it .

anyway . Imran , Limey , this is a case of taste . even if you don't share the same opinion about CTP , this is no reason to get really pissed off . words like "punk" and "little student" ( ) won't solve this discussion .

my opinion on CTP's special units is that the innovation is great , but I think that a branch in your country should actually benefit you if you are a small civ.
( oh I know you dieties never experienced the situation , but I did , mostly coz I actually enjoy looking on the waging of a WW, without me participating. )

the whole change is a great thing but is taken to a slightly wrong direction . like the tech of Asteroid mining , with no asteroids etc etc . but the change is good , and it's here .


but again, this is not the question . the question is :

Do you prefer civ "as is" or a new game ?


I don't know . now when I say it , I hope a 4 level game : religion , state , culture , economy . but I constantly change my mind .


yin : thnx for the support of the topic .
boy , you just stay offline for a day or two and wham! ........



------------------
Prepare to Land !