More ancient turns

[Stuff2]

In a civ2 game i don't have the resources or the time to start a big war campaign until sometimes after 1800. (I always play on emperor or diety level). All the progress before that seemes insignificant and that is too bad. The first 5800 goes by with no alternatives and then suddenly you have possibilities to get 100 times stronger.
I suggest more ancient techs and units and improvements. Also more modern units require more support. In civ2 you give the same support to a stealth fighter and a warrior, that seemes very unbalanced to me.

[Shadowstrike]

I too, have noticed that Civ II is slanted in favour of the modern era. The units, improvements and technologies are disproportional slanted to the modern era. Consider the fact that the Age of Discovery (1500-1700) was an important age in history, but is portrayed by a handful of technologies and even less units (no more then six, Musketeers, Frigate, Caravel, Galleon, Cannon and Dragoons) Whatever happened to those other military units of the bygone eras?

[Seeker]

I think there should be a long game option to have 1 year turns the whole way through (6000 potential turns). The tech rate would be slowed, of course.

Problems: This needs a more difficult AI opponent, or one with hidden bonuses since the human player will outpace the AIs more and more if he doesn't have to 'beat the clock'

[Steve Clark]

Then play Kull's Seeds of Greatness scenario. As has been stated many times before, if anyone wants more emphasis on a time period or a historical event, then play or build a custom scenario. That is the best of way implementing ideas like this without compromising the main game.

[Shadowstrike]

I think this can be solved by having a simple main game, and sophisticated "period specific" games , i.e. one modern, one ancient, etc. where the entire technology tree focuses on a specific portion of time, and gives you several cities and/or units depending on what period you chose.

Then, in the main game, you have the option of "dropping" into each one of these time periods and playing through it. Large empires being plagued by revolt should make sure that any would-be world conquerers would have to ensure their hard won victories or lose them. Alternatively, you can just play through a simplfied version of the entire game (with a higher tech paradigm)

[Napoleon I]

I would have to agree with Steve Clark on this one, that scenarios really is the way out.

I think that the the main game should stay basically as it is now, maybe with an expanded tech tree and slowed progress in years starting earlier on. However, if you are looking for a really detailed simulation of a particular era or historical situation, then a powerful scenario editor (pray to the Firaxis Gods to implement this ) should solve this.

------------------
Napoleon I

[Strategist]

quote: Originally posted by Shadowstrike on 08-02-2000 01:16 PM the Age of Discovery (1500-1700) was an important age in history, but is portrayed by a handful of technologies and even less units (no more then six, Musketeers, Frigate, Caravel, Galleon, Cannon and Dragoons)

huh? Musketeers and Cannons were even available befoe that, since the 14th century... so the only really new units are the Dragoons, Frigate and Galleon. Even the Caravel is a development of the 15th century I think...

[Theben]

Check out MISCELLANEOUS/OTHER 3.0 and scroll down to #3 Era-Based Games for a possible solution.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by Strategist on 08-03-2000 09:19 AM Musketeers and Cannons were even available befoe that, since the 14th century... so the only really new units are the Dragoons, Frigate and Galleon. Even the Caravel is a development of the 15th century I think...

You're confusing the arquebus with the musket. A musket is a much more refined arquebus, which doesn't need a rest to fire from. The musketeer unit also represents the development of line tactics. Also iron cannons evolved from bronze (or vice versa, I can't remember which) in the same period. You're right about the caravel.

The important units that are missing are- a later set of musketeers (Napoleonic style), a ship of the line (same/greater fp thean ironclad, but lower armour and defense), not just a pitiful frigate. Siege artillery, as opposed to te field version. Pikes should stay in date until the bayonet musketeers mentioned above, since this is accurate.

[UltraSonix]

From the aforementioned list:

quote: 3.4) Have new starting/stopping points for civ3. Play can be designated to stop at the end of a given era, or start at the beginning of that era. Technology would not progress past the last era (as above); all new tech would be considered "future tech". Especially useful for multiplayer.

I was about to mention this idea myself. Having it would allow a game to occur in just one specific era, which means new era specific rules.txt would need to be developed so more era-units are available. This provides excellent potential for games based in the Roman era (diff siege engines, diff types of infantry), Middle Ages (castles improvement, different types of knight), etc.

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

[Shadowstrike]

I think a more proportional mix of units should be included. Either more units, or an even amount of units in each era.

With more units, scenario makers have more flexibility, but the build lists can get long. Generally, over 200 units in Civ 3 would clog up the build lists at anytime.

With even amounts of units, Civ 3 could lose some realism, in that some era would not be fully represented, but allows for better playablity.

[DarkCloud]

Steve-

It could be an option in the game to allow 1 turn per year. It would make the game more interesting in my mind, and would allow the makers to add more units (This could be done in a Civers Edition!) to the game to fill in those years.

I agree with most of the statements posted in this thread that era specific games should be implemented.
I had a quite radical and not well-structured optional idea, maybe it sounds a little bit odd, but I just had to post it. In the beginning of the game you could start on a regional map with the rules for the ancient-era game and after you achieve a certain hegemony there your civilization and the regional map are simplified as a part of a world map with new opponents, the old cease to exist.
Personally I enjoy playing the Aztecs on a Mesoamerica-map, but after building Magellan’s journey it feels a little bit odd.
A way to transform the civilization to the world map would be to make smaller populations for cities in the beginning. i.e.: 1Pop=1000 inhab. Only those cities bigger than 10000 inhab. are then actually imported to the world map.


------------------
Wernazuma

Comrade of the aztec peoples republic

[UltraSonix]

No, I actually think the idea suggested above is very good, it's just that the game has to be able to "zoom out" fairly - so that no aspect is missed - eg if the road system is neat and well-developed, then the zoomed-out version will be too. This may be a bit hard to do.

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

[Talon438]

Wern thats an awesome idea. I mean theres no purpose in having a totally blacked out map. the small map stage could be your assension period were you get controll of the first building blocks of your civ and kill your first oponents there could be a few diff maps geting bigger as you go and eventually the whole world would be visible. this would let you have more wars in ancient times.

[UltraSonix]

I was just thinking that Wern's idea is good - wouldn't be great to play Rome as it takes over the city-states near it, and then go onto the larger picture - attacking Europe.

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

[Sirotnikov]

I don't know about the zooming out idea. I think this may over complicate the game or at least the game code. It would make the programming a heaven for bugs and errors.

I do however agree with several points:

1. The BC years usually take less than 10% of the actual game time while they represent 4000 years and the AD years represent only 2000 years.

2. The age of discovery is one of the worse ages from a military point of view. You get only a few new units, as mentioned earlier, and also, those units make fighting impossible. There is absolutely no way to overcome 3 fortified Musketeers in a city with citywalls and barracks. NOTHING in that era can fortify such defenses (unless you play chieftain ). Because dragoons SUCK! and cannons SUCK!

3. The technology rate is often too fast. I suggest we should make modern techs require even more lightbulbs since with less than 30 cities with a good economical status under democracy you discover one tech in 5 turns. which makes building units non profitable since they will soon be considered very old and useless. (I'm talking about king level)
(I'm still not that good in emperor or diety level )
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited August 24, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

With a unit workshop like I propose in Unit Modules then extra B.C. turns would be possible because you would have extra unit types to create to fill the gaps. You most certainly should decrease the turn length in the BC eras to a minimum of 10 years per turn.

[UltraSonix]

I think the zooming out system should ONLY be employed in scenarios, like the Rome thing I proposed above.

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

If you suggest that the zooming-out idea can be used in scenarios you probably think it’s realizable. I think if it’s realizable it could be an option to use it or not. I’d like to see it, because it gives a more realistic touch to the early eras.
If it can’t be done it just won’t come, no matter whether people like it or not.
Still I think that it should be possible to recompute the maps, especially if geographic features, elevations etc. are more like in SMAC and not based on the simple “Mountain-Tile”-thinking.