Firexis Plz Read This!!!

PapaLenin · February 1, 2002, 07:24

I just wanted to tell that civ3 is pretty boring to play casue it is all the time the same formula. U build and wage war. So I want to suggest something. I know my opinion is not worth a crap, but plz spend even a second to read this.
My suggestion is to make some more fun in playin civ3. Because the more there is little small funny things in the game the more one enjoyes to play it.
So these are my suggestions:

- City rebbellions.
Sometime if ur citizens in a city are very unhappy the city might revolt. That means it stats to produce military units and wages war against ur empire. To make my idea easier to understand: (Athens and Thebes revolted agains Alexander the Great and he had to crush their armies to put them back in order, well he burned the whole Thebes down but thats not the point.) So I mean the revolting city will turn say white colour like barbarians and just start acting like them, trying to crush ur empire. And that should happen from Ancient-middle ages.

-Civil war
In civ2 when u captured the capital of enemy the whole nation spread into two. In civ3 I think sometimes should start civl wars. Basicly the same thing as rebelling but this time many cities will become "barbarian" trying to crush u. Civil wars should start for excample many people are unhappy or when u change Goverment types which are far away from each other. Say Democracy to Communism- I bet many people wont prefer that but many also would. (not now ofcourse)

-Flags and Coat of arms
Make a selection of Flags and Coat of arms which can be chosen to represent ur empire. They would be shown in diplomatic screen and if possible some large cities would have the flag of the country. Armies flag should bear the coat of arms u've chosen

-Terrorists
Nations or barbarians would be able to conduct terrorist strikes. They could say kill population and buildings and make pople unhappy and there should be a way to fight them somehow.

-Diplomacy
I can say that in AC the diplomacy was much more joyous than in civ3. There was world wide meetings about atrocities prohibitations and u could ask rivals civs to stop war with someone. U were able to co-ordinate battle plans. These were useless thing but funny. And insted of developing them by which they would have became really good additons and maybe even useful u guys just removed them.

These are some ideas I have, I know I havent developed them far enough but thats not my job, if civ3 would be excellent I wouldn't write this at all, but I dont play the game anymore cause its so boring, and adding some useless but funny things like these would make it much better.

Thank you.

P.S. All who read this I want to know ur opinions also. So tell me what do u think about this and FAST!!!

Hurricane · February 1, 2002, 08:20

The Andy-Man · February 1, 2002, 10:24

agree with the diplomacy. SMAC had the best diplo model of all, only needed a few tweaks to it.

Gutz · February 1, 2002, 11:36

I think the ideas are fairly good ones but I really can't see the possibilty of them being implemented in a patch. Most of your changes (except the coat of arms) would require major rewrites of the code. Never hurts to throw out the suggestions though.... maybe in civ4. I hope my post was almost as good as hurricanes....

Martin Gühmann · February 1, 2002, 12:45

Why should Firaxis read this thread. Civ2.5 sells pretty well. So no need for changes.

They got your cash and that is all what they want. And they want to do it with highest effeciency. To achieve this goal just minimize the costs and maximize the gain. So their plain works, because of Sid's and the Civ name on the game box.

Don't let it bother you, I did the same mistake in December 2000 but in comparision to Civ2.5 CTP2 is much more customizable and moddable and fixable. So I got finally a very good civ game afterwards I put some work into it. And I never bought again another game by Activision by another company. Yeah CTP2 helped me to save a lot of mony. And I guess you will spend a lot of mony on Civ2.5 expansion packs just to realize that they are not worth your mony.

-Martin

Kevin Ar18 · February 1, 2002, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
Why should Firaxis read this thread. Civ2.5 sells pretty well. So no need for changes.

They got your cash and that is all what they want. And they want to do it with highest effeciency. To achieve this goal just minimize the costs and maximize the gain. So their plain works, because of Sid's and the Civ name on the game box.

Don't let it bother you, I did the same mistake in December 2000 but in comparision to Civ2.5 CTP2 is much more customizable and moddable and fixable. So I got finally a very good civ game afterwards I put some work into it. And I never bought again another game by Activision by another company. Yeah CTP2 helped me to save a lot of mony. And I guess you will spend a lot of mony on Civ2.5 expansion packs just to realize that they are not worth your mony.

-Martin

One thing to consider though is that Firaxis is definitely not gonna get by with any future Civ games unless they do something serious about CivIII. So, while it may not hurt now it could in the long run. Personally I don't think they did it on purpose though. Either they just didn't have time or they just didn't really know how to design a good game without the guy who did Civ2. Also the quote one of the programmers made about not fixing the city revert problem because it would be too much programming makes me wonder.

Pythagoras · February 1, 2002, 13:23

[quote]-Civil war
In civ2 when u captured the capital of enemy the whole nation spread into two. In civ3 I think sometimes should start civl wars. Basicly the same thing as rebelling but this time many cities will become "barbarian" trying to crush u. Civil wars should start for excample many people are unhappy or when u change Goverment types which are far away from each other. Say Democracy to Communism- I bet many people wont prefer that but many also would. (not now ofcourse) [quote]

I too miss civil wars, I think foreign national should be able to re-arise after you conquer them, then during times of extreme civil-disorder, those citizens could re-enter resistance mode, and could potentially flop back to their old, conquered (now dead) civ. I also loved how in earlier civ games you could always have that chance to thrust your largest enemy into civil war. I remember many-a-game that had enemy troops in a corner, and my secret army slips by enemy detection and manages to capture the capitol. So fun

.

Quote:

-Terrorists
Nations or barbarians would be able to conduct terrorist strikes. They could say kill population and buildings and make pople unhappy and there should be a way to fight them somehow.

I think some of this might be implemented in with modern espianage.

Quote:

I can say that in AC the diplomacy was much more joyous than in civ3. There was world wide meetings about atrocities prohibitations and u could ask rivals civs to stop war with someone. U were able to co-ordinate battle plans. These were useless thing but funny. And insted of developing them by which they would have became really good additons and maybe even useful u guys just removed them.

Well the point of SMAC/X was that you had all these competing personalities determined to push their personal ideologies on the mission. Diplomacy was the way of demonstrating this personality friction, maybe not as appropriate for competing nation-states where one personality doesnt hang around long. Youre leader is more a 'man behind the curtains' figure as history progresses, or at least how thats I view it. But I do agree that Planetary-Council style voting for UN stuff would be cool, but I dont think its realistic to expect the Firaxis team to implement something like that when the UN may only be around for 50-200 turns of a players game, whereas in SMAC/X the planetary council was aronud in the game for at least half of it.

Martin Gühmann · February 1, 2002, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18
One thing to consider though is that Firaxis is definitely not gonna get by with any future Civ games unless they do something serious about CivIII. So, while it may not hurt now it could in the long run.

That's true but I can imagine that it will not only effect future Civ games but also Civ3 expansion packs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18
Either they just didn't have time or they just didn't really know how to design a good game without the guy who did Civ2.

I can accept your first suggestion, but your second suggestion is just frightening. But I think it is possible. And if they don't know how to make a game than it is just sad. And if you use the rhules of the market than it is OK if they go bankrupt, but so far that is very unlikly.

-Martin

Kevin Ar18 · February 1, 2002, 19:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann

I can accept your first suggestion, but your second suggestion is just frightening. But I think it is possible. And if they don't know how to make a game than it is just sad. And if you use the rhules of the market than it is OK if they go bankrupt, but so far that is very unlikly.

-Martin

May I explain myself? Perhaps you won't mind.

Na, I'm not upset. In fact thanks for the nice reply.
You see I've never really liked Sid Meir's games. All the games that have his name on it that I've liked were not actually made by him (aka Civ 2, SMAC, Colonization). The games Sid actually made himself I consider to be fun, yet simple -- after a while there is no depth to the game. This is how I feel about Civ3, simple and nice and fun ideas, but no serious attention to detail. Sim Golf may be an exception, although I thought it was kind of simple to start with.
I heard a quote from Sid once and I don't remember exact words, but here's the general idea.
In designing a game if it comes to a choice between realism and fun, chose fun.
While I quite agree with that, I've seen how that "philosophy" has failed to make CivIII. Instead I would like to see in CivIII, take what is real and apply that realistic aspect to the game in a way that is enjoyable. Many suggestions in the past for CivIII have been along these lines -- aka MAD for nuclear missiles, true alliances, solid borders, etc..., etc.... It is in this area that probably all of my gripes about CivIII lie.

One last thing, in a interview with one of the programmers of CivIII someone asked if they would fix the problem where when a city reverts you just lose all your units. Well, his reply was something along the lines of that would be too much work to program. So, they just leave this annoying bug in the game because they don't want to spend the time making it the right way. For these reasons coupled probably with some others, maybe you can see what I meant by my statements.

February 1, 2002, 23:57

Quote:

One thing to consider though is that Firaxis is definitely not gonna get by with any future Civ games unless they do something serious about CivIII.

That's an interesting thought. The one thing you forget is that Firaxis does not own the rights to Civ anything. Infogrames owns the Civ franchise and it looks like Firaxis is laughing all the way to the bank on this one. If you don't like Civ III don't buy anymore games with the Firaxis label on it.

Kevin Ar18 · February 2, 2002, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by number6

That's an interesting thought. The one thing you forget is that Firaxis does not own the rights to Civ anything. Infogrames owns the Civ franchise and it looks like Firaxis is laughing all the way to the bank on this one. If you don't like Civ III don't buy anymore games with the Firaxis label on it.

Hmm, I didn't know that. However, I guess the point was, people would be a little more cautious of Civ games made by Firaxis.
As for just not buying stuff from Firaxis, I'm not gonna do that. If I like the game I'll get it. I'll just be a little cautious.

From the news annoinced here on Apolyton about Firaxis looking for beta testers, I have come to believe that perhaps Sid and the people at Firaxis are looking at ways to address and fix the issues we are complaining about. I would be sadly disappointed if that is not what they are doing, but instead are working on other projects. Despite that, I still think they are working on CivIII behind the scenes considering they have promised things concerning multiplayer and the editor. I so hope they will give some greater attention to details and fixing the annoyances we have encountered.

February 2, 2002, 01:46

Quote:

originally posted by Kevin Ar18

I guess the point was, people would be a little more cautious of Civ games made by Firaxis.

I agree with that except I would take out "Civ" and say any game with Firaxis' name on it. I would also buy a game from Firaxis in the future if it were truly awesome, but I would wait and play the demo first. If no demos come out for future Firaxis games I will not buy them. You can't go by reviews anymore, since most game magazines gave Civ III very high marks. I think the gaming press thinks Sid can do no wrong. Maybe he can't, but his team can. They (Firaxis) have definitely hurt their reputation with Civ III.

Hagbart · February 2, 2002, 07:38

I like the idea of having global meetings like in alpha centauri.

I dont really know if it would be funny to have your cities revolving against the empire.

PapaLenin · February 2, 2002, 16:45

Quote:

I dont really know if it would be funny to have your cities revolving against the empire.

Why not? I don't mean that half of your cities will start a major war using all their weapon capabilities. But like 10-20% of ur cities and theirs chance of success would be very small. I mean their chance of success would be that u should have very small army. Civil wars are just this small thing to enterntain u during peace time not major problem at all.
But what is your opinion on city revolts???

Thank you all for answering and keep on answering!!!

The Andy-Man · February 2, 2002, 16:46

i heard that all the good features in Civ2 were designed by some guy, and he owned the copy right, so when he left they couldn't use them for the new game, eg, the fantastic civ2 combat engine....

Comrade Tribune · February 2, 2002, 18:47

Most of the good features in CivII were designed by Brian Reynolds, I think, but I believe he doesn´t have a copyright on them. That they actually went backwards in Civolution from CivII is mostly explained by utter stupidity, imo...

EXAMPLE: Railroads

I really believe this one example sums up what´s wrong with Firaxis:

1- The original CivI did already have this Railroad overkill. Nobody liked Railroads everywhere, they were as ugly then as they are now.

2- Brian Reynolds listened to the fans and reduced the incentive to build Railroads; CivII was perfect in that respect.

3- The ignoramusses who designed CivIII probably didn´t even know about 1- and 2- above, so they simply repeated the original mistake.

4- This is what you get if you let ignorants do a job that should be done by people who know and care about what they are doing.

Encomium · February 2, 2002, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutz
I think the ideas are fairly good ones but I really can't see the possibilty of them being implemented in a patch. Most of your changes (except the coat of arms) would require major rewrites of the code. Never hurts to throw out the suggestions though.... maybe in civ4. I hope my post was almost as good as hurricanes....

Too bad that two months after most of us got Civ III. . . we all can't wait for Civ 4!!

Tells you how bad Civ III really is.

notyoueither · February 3, 2002, 02:57

Martin Gühmann:

Correct me if I am wrong on any of these points.

You do not play Civ3.

You never intend to play Civ3.

You're sole interest here is to stir up sh*t and to promote your favorite patches for CTP2.

In other words you are wasting everyone's time here.

OK. I am going to violate the cardinal rule I have posted by for the last several weeks.

You are a troll. No, you are worse than a troll. At least Yin is funny from time to time.

You are an a$$.

Bring it on.

Martin Gühmann · February 3, 2002, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
You are an a$$.

No offences, please.

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
You never intend to play Civ3.

Say never never. At least I asked for a demo. But be honest the main flaw of Civ3 for me is the unit based tile improving system.

But you can also learn here something I did not know this statement:

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18
In designing a game if it comes to a choice between realism and fun, chose fun.

But I can agree as I judged CTP2 as a empire simulation and Civ2 as a game.

-Martin

Atahualpa · February 3, 2002, 09:54

Quote:

In civ2 when u captured the capital of enemy the whole nation spread into two

1960: Washington is taken by the Russians and suddenly Americans split up in two groups. I can REALLY see this situation

I guess rather would every American grab his gun and try to take the capital back.
Such attacks just unite a nation more and more, if it wasnt falling apart before.

Show me ONE nation that split because their capital was taken.

Comrade Tribune · February 3, 2002, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Martin Gühmann:
...
You do not play Civ3.

You never intend to play Civ3.
...
You are a troll.

NotYou:

1- I do not vote for the Nazis.

2- I never intend to vote for the Nazis.

3- Therefore, I must not discuss the Nazis.

See the flaw in your logic?

Comrade Tribune · February 3, 2002, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann

But I can agree as I judged CTP2 as a empire simulation and Civ2 as a game.

-Martin

Absolutely. Congratulations for not buying CivIII. It may be playable as a sort of not too cool Risk variant, but I don´t think that´s what the fans wanted and expected.

Comrade Tribune · February 3, 2002, 14:32

Btw, what happened to Vel´s new thread? It wasn´t closed, it wasn´t moved, simply vanished without a trace?

Hurry · February 3, 2002, 16:41

I think Firaxis tried to learn something from Railroad Tycoon: RR1 was much more fun than RR2, because RR2 was packed with too much details. Yes, Civ3 has many flaws and problems, but seen as a whole, I think it is a quite enjoyable game.

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune:

1- I do not vote for the Nazis.

2- I never intend to vote for the Nazis.

3- Therefore, I must not discuss the Nazis.

See the flaw in your logic?

Lousy example. What makes a voter of one political party more informed about politics than a voter for another party? You folks seem to be annoyed that Civ3 is not just a better version of Civ2. It´s not, its another game. Live with it.

The Andy-Man · February 3, 2002, 16:49

but thats what very one wanted, a better version of Civ2.

Civ2 was great, i just got the the late industrial era for the first time on Civ3 (using the long winded changes mod, didnt even attempt the normal game with that sorta navy) and i am bored sensless. the Romans declared war on me and every one seemed to be annoyed with me at the same time (i have never started a war and only bin in 2 before), and all of a sudden the french join in with the romans, i get war wariness and stuff. this is all ok, but in Civ2 you had the opertunity to ask for peace a bit quicker

I digrerssed a bit, with Civ3 it feels you are just waiting for your culture to expand, or just waiting for sumthin fun to happen. civ2 was action all the way.

Civ2 was playable for hours, civ3 is missing that special sumthin.

Comrade Tribune · February 3, 2002, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Hurry
Lousy example. What makes a voter of one political party more informed about politics than a voter for another party?

My point was that discussing a game you do not intend to buy doesn´t make you a Troll.

Btw, I never bought Ctp2. Martin has now convinced me that, after extensive modification, it´s now worth a try.

Grumbold · February 4, 2002, 07:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Show me ONE nation that split because their capital was taken.

On a truly broad brush look at history (the only kind Civ could even come close to claiming) you could nominate the Romans.

Most of the ideas that Civ III or IV would ever need are contained in its competing products or in the pages of Apolyton somewhere (not least The List). Unfortunately there was an admission from the developers that they didn't really look at any other games to see what they did well and while Apolyton has all the good ideas for implementation it has hundreds of bad, undeveloped or un-fun ones too.

Firaxis have already hurt their reputation with the dedicated Civ fans, largely I believe because of pressure applied from Infogrammes to cut features and release to the original deadline. To regain a measure of that respect they need to release an absolutely cracking patch / expansion that solves the current game faults and reduces late game tedium by either expanding the options in the modern age or vastly reducing micromanagement. For the multiplayer enthusiasts there would have to be a series of viable multiplayer options included as well. For the modmakers a truly useful editor is another must (and is the only thing that could ensure a long term future for the game.) We are only going to get this sort of comprehensive package if Infogrammes decides it will sell well enough to make a significant amount of money. Sad but true.

Harovan · February 4, 2002, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Btw, I never bought Ctp2. Martin has now convinced me that, after extensive modification, it´s now worth a try.

CTP and especially CTP2 are very good games indeed, and definitely worth to be played. While I don't think, that Civ3 is a total disaster, just another game greatly rushed and with many flaws that need to be fixed, I alter playing Civ3/CTP2/Civ2 though.